Are tracks afraid of winning players?

[cj]

After all, a winner isn't actually a winner unless he is removing money from circulation. The more I think about it, the more I think they would much rather have only losing players in the pools.

How far off base am I with this one?

[ryesteve]

After all, a winner is actually a winner unless he is removing money from circulation. The more I think about it, the more I think they would much rather have only losing players in the pools.

How far off base am I with this one?
I don't get the logic here. The money a loser loses is "out of circulation" as well. But a winning player is able to churn a lot more in wagering action than they end up pocketing.

[highnote]

After all, a winner is actually a winner unless he is removing money from circulation. The more I think about it, the more I think they would much rather have only losing players in the pools.

How far off base am I with this one?


Pittsburgh Phil was "too successful" and was banned from NY tracks.

Bill Benter was "too successful" in Hong Kong and for awhile track management made it difficult for him to bet there.

I guess there is a racetrack executive perception that if someone is too successful the average and/or losing players leave the game.

I don't know if successful players keep the less successful away.

Is this something that HANA should address?

[DJofSD]

Boy, cj, you really have me scratching my head.

I always thought the track was a neutral party in the process. They basically held the wagers until the winners were determined then they extracted a fee for their services.

Of coarse, if they get their cut right up front regardless of what happens after you hand over your money, I can then see were the track would not want to have any winners. They just become a fee collector and would not have any duty to pay anything to any one. A money roach motel -- your money goes in but doesn't come out.

[cj]

First, the initial post should say "a winner isn't a winner until"...

I'm just wondering why they seem so averse to helping the player. You don't see the sport ever promoting winning players other than a P6 windfall. I'm talking about pros. Poker certainly does this.

Yes ryesteve, a losers money is out of circulation, but if everyone loses, it is all circulating to the tracks and the horsemen eventually.

[DJofSD]

cj, it does sometimes make you wonder why there's not more "promotion" of the gambling side of the game. Sure, there's the family funs days, the recognition of a tradition, the advertising when there's a well known horse that's shipped in to run, etc., but when do you see it openly discussed there's actually gambling going on at the track?

[DeanT]

I think they do CJ.

As Cangamble noted awhile ago we need winning players. What is the proper percentage? I dont know. Maybe 10%, 20%? We need something to get people to get the word of mouth going.

I dont think tracks feel it is important because I think they think about turnstiles, rather than gamblers. The business was about the number of people in the seats when it was a monopoly and I think that is hard for them to shake.

Vegas was a ghost town compared to today when slot rakes were 30%. Most execs there are on record saying they get zero return and word of mouth when they sent people home losers all the time.

As John so eloquently pointed out in his Paradigm shift piece on the site: More bettors can win at an exchange and it is much more fun to win, so it is a growth mechanism as betfair has proven. They made racing more profitable, and more fun.

[cj]

I think they do CJ.

As Cangamble noted awhile ago we need winning players. What is the proper percentage? I dont know. Maybe 10%, 20%? We need something to get people to get the word of mouth going.

I dont think tracks feel it is important because I think they think about turnstiles, rather than gamblers. The business was about the number of people in the seats when it was a monopoly and I think that is hard for them to shake.

Vegas was a ghost town compared to today when slot rakes were 30%. Most execs there are on record saying they get zero return and word of mouth when they sent people home losers all the time.

I know this, and you know this, but do the track executives know this? It sure doesn't seem that way.

[highnote]

Vegas was a ghost town compared to today when slot rakes were 30%. Most execs there are on record saying they get zero return and word of mouth when they sent people home losers all the time.

I have never met a person who went to Vegas and lost money. Everyone I have talked to came home a winner. :D



As John so eloquently pointed out in his Paradigm shift piece on the site: More bettors can win at an exchange and it is much more fun to win, so it is a growth mechanism as betfair has proven. They made racing more profitable, and more fun.

And don't forget the betting volume on the exchanges.

[lamboguy]

racetracks do want people to come in and lose, so their handle gets churned. i say the best adverisement is when someone comes home and hits the huge super.
at tampa berube don't let batch players and computer experts with his mutual pools come in to steal the money from regular players that don't have access to last tick odds and ability to bet after the race has become. i think that is why he won't give his signal out to certain adw's. and why he chose to give premier turf club his signal. the funny thing is that california tracks, and the tracknet, still give these offshore entities access to their mutual pools, yet they don't give it to the premier turf club who don't allow this batch betting.

obviously the venues feel that by losing the offshore batch bettors, it would mean a steep decline in handle. maybe they should look at berube's business model in not allowing the batchbettors, its gone up while the tracknet tracks have decreased! and the meet has gotter alot better at tampa, look at all the horses that win that leave tampa to run at other tracks.

[DeanT]

CJ: Nope. I dont. I think they think that the more winners they have, the worse it is for everyone else. We should be allowing for the opposite to happen to get a whole new growth segment.

Just a note about how other promote winners? Recently there was a lady, just a lady at home babysitting her kids, who liked "watching the horses go round". She was a betfair member and would bet a couple of dollars in running on a race. One time, she bet a horse at 1000-1 who almost fell over a barrier in a steeple chase. The horse came back on to win. She made something like 10000 pounds. It was front page news. And anyone who did not know that every day people, right from the comfort of their own home on a Monday afternoon could pop on and do the same thing were not much around.

We do that a tiny bit with jackpot pools in our racing, but you need to recite the Magna Carte it seems to play racing here, or even worse, in AZ you can go to jail betting a Santa Anita pick 6.

We dont let people win enough, or give them an easy way to make news for us.

[Cangamble]

I know this, and you know this, but do the track executives know this? It sure doesn't seem that way.
This pertains to ADW accounts:
I think racing execs look at customers in a way where they want to get that customer to lose as much of his or her gambling money on their product.
I think they don't really care about the churn affect as much as they look at the bottom line.
In other words, I think HPI gets more excited when someone makes a deposit....they figure that is their money now, and they want it to be lost as quickly as possible so that the client can refill and give them more money.
I don't think they care if that customer churns with the money he or she deposited, but it is important to them, that the customer doesn't ask for a check and take money out...that is lost money to them.

They have the numbers. They know that the money they make isn't so much what their cut on a bet is, but rather their cut on money deposited.

On the other hand, PTC wants their customers to cash and churn as much as possible and they don't care if you have to make another deposit.

[Cangamble]

After all, a winner isn't actually a winner unless he is removing money from circulation. The more I think about it, the more I think they would much rather have only losing players in the pools.

How far off base am I with this one?
I think that racing execs look at it that way.
They look at their customers in a collective way now. They want as much from each customer as they can get. That is their bottom line. The more each customer loses, the more they make.
They may have used to look at it as the money they make was equal to the blended takeout. But now with little customer growth, they have shifted the way they look at the pie.

[Tape Reader]

Are tracks afraid of winning players?

They are if they create a minus pool!

I know that this is a constant rant of mine but, until tracks understand that there are two sides to a free market, they will not be able to prosper. Tracks must allow "short selling" as is done in all financial markets.

A positive example is this:

A horse is even money. Someone bets $10,000. Odds drop, potential bettors back off, handle wanes. Or, in a worse case scenario, horse gets pounded and the track incurs a minus pool. Not good for racing.

If on the other hand a bettor could take the other side of that $10,000 bet, odds remain the same, betting continues and handle soars. This is only one example. If this were allowed the "quants" would soon arrive. Handle would soar and take out would plummet.

(Can't respond back for a few days. Off to Saratoga.)

[Cangamble]

Are tracks afraid of winning players?

They are if they create a minus pool!

I know that this is a constant rant of mine but, until tracks understand that there are two sides to a free market, they will not be able to prosper. Tracks must allow "short selling" as is done in all financial markets.

A positive example is this:

A horse is even money. Someone bets $10,000. Odds drop, potential bettors back off, handle wanes. Or, in a worse case scenario, horse gets pounded and the track incurs a minus pool. Not good for racing.

If on the other hand a bettor could take the other side of that $10,000 bet, odds remain the same, betting continues and handle soars. This is only one example. If this were allowed the "quants" would soon arrive. Handle would soar and take out would plummet.

(Can't respond back for a few days. Off to Saratoga.)

I've already told you that short selling is available at Betfair. However, they don't take American customers.

[Dave Schwartz]

IMHO, just as the horse player wants a "system" that gets him 40% winners with a $16 mutuel average, the tracks are equally unrealistic. They simply want players with deep pockets that never stop betting, like $12 beers and $8 hot dogs. I doubt that they care much one way or the other whether anyone wins. Frankly, based upon their attentiveness to the customer, I doubt that they are aware that anyone wins.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[rrbauer]

For the most part the tracks don't know who are the winners and who are the losers. From that you must conclude that they don't really care. If they did care, they would know. There are some "reputation" players at each track who make a big splash from time to time (and the world gets to hear about it) but as to being winners/losers, who knows? I do think that the tracks know who the people are who are putting some serious dough through the windows and I would guess that those people get some respect (and some favors?).

ADW's are a bit different since they can do computer isolation of each account and make some determination of winner/loser and then identify the party. For sure they know where the big handle is coming from.

[Tom]

I don't think most track managment people actually think deep enough to care one way or the other. I'm sure the bettors are seldom on the minds of track managements.

[BillW]

I don't know if successful players keep the less successful away.

Is this something that HANA should address?

Trying to engineer the distribution of winnings with the goal of advancing the game seems way out of bounds to me. I have no problem with supporting a level playing field, (no one should have the advantage of past posting whether by conspiracy or simple neglect of the system by the industry, nobody should have faster tote update cycles than the next guy etc.). It is a fact of competition that some are better than others and will drive some people away. (Believe it or not, it was successful players that kept me from making it big on the PGA tour - damn them, I'm so jealous :bang: :bang: ).

Our goal should be to maximize the number of players participating and the amount they play for the betterment of the game.

[Cangamble]

Our goal should be to maximize the number of players participating and the amount they play for the betterment of the game.
That really should be our number one goal.
It should be the race tracks goal too, but the execs don't have a clue when it comes to achieving the goal.

[rrbauer]

Our goal should be to maximize the number of players participating and the amount they play for the betterment of the game.



That really should be our number one goal.
It should be the race tracks goal too, but the execs don't have a clue when it comes to achieving the goal.

Our number one goal should be to maximize today's bettors' money, today; and, then build on that.

[Cangamble]

Our number one goal should be to maximize today's bettors' money, today; and, then build on that.
We are taking some heat in the comment sections as being self serving. I think we need a more diplomatic motto.
People read maximizing today's bettors money as being equal to allowing existing player to lose less money or to actually win money.
Our goal isn't really that, it is to give the player a chance to lose less money and a chance to win more money....but this will only be achieved by attracting new players.
Our ultimate goal is therefore to attract new players to bet horses.

I responded to someone's genuine concern on Paulicks guest editorial page:

“I’m less interested in how much someone bet than in how much they lost. The horses have to eat, and there’s no money to feed them if nobody loses.

The perspective of the horsemen is pretty simple. The industry is not growing. What makes ADW handle a growth segment is not new dollars, but dollars that used to be bet at the track. Purses have historically been about 6.5% of handle. Why should that number go down just because handle is now flowing through a different channel? It strikes me as naive to argue that the industry would suddenly start growing (in the face of increasing competition for the gambling dollar) if horsemen would just chill.”
************************************************** ******************************
Bitplayer, I admire your honesty. I think that racing execs especially realize that the amount bet is not the way to look at things anymore, but the money lost by each individual customer. They want to maximize the amounts lost by each customer because they feel they are competing against all other forms of entertainment.
In other words, they don’t want winners. They even resent winners.
However, it is this mentality that has made it so that the ADW business has really just taken money out of the pot that used to be split by only racetracks and horsemen.
You would figure that once betting would be available to everyone anytime that customer growth would be exponential. It would have, if the takeouts were competitive with other forms of gambling.
Instead, the public has woke up and realizes that no matter how much time and effort one spends on trying to beat the game, without healthy rebates, there is absolutely no chance of winning over a 3 year period (OK, maybe one chance out of 20,000 tops).
Meanwhile, if one is sharp enough, sports betting is beatable or at least gives someone the chance to bet a lot and bet often and maybe even break even. The same is true with online Poker.
That is why WINNERS are important. They create BUZZ which creates new players.

What the racing industry needs badly is a whole slew of new players who will add to the pot that the horsemen and tracks and ADWs get to split up.

HANA’s goal is to find a way to attract new horseplayers. In fact, that should be the racetracks goal too, but the standard racing exec doesn’t seem to have a clue on how to achieve this goal.

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/horseplayers-lock-horns-with-owners-group/

[sjk]

They should be.

It is a short run vs long run issue and I think enough damage has already been done that the long run looks bleak.

If it is made easy enough through rebates for serious and well capitalized players to suck money out of the pools the effective take on the casual player gets very high.

It would be interesting to know what percent of money bet is returned to winners on-track. If winning becomes a rarity for the casual player the prospects for him becoming a regular are diminished.

Since tracks get a far higher percent of the action on-track as well as opportunities for ancilliary income a model which gives the casual player little positive reinforcement (this has been in place for many years already) will likely come to a bad end.

[Cangamble]

They should be.

It is a short run vs long run issue and I think enough damage has already been done that the long run looks bleak.

If it is made easy enough through rebates for serious and well capitalized players to suck money out of the pools the effective take on the casual player gets very high.

It would be interesting to know what percent of money bet is returned to winners on-track. If winning becomes a rarity for the casual player the prospects for him becoming a regular are diminished.

Since tracks get a far higher percent of the action on-track as well as opportunities for ancilliary income a model which gives the casual player little positive reinforcement (this has been in place for many years already) will likely come to a bad end.
You are right. A couple of points though. One is that many whales do lose money and they might not be adding to the pot if not for their special deals.
I don't think the casual fan gives a hoot about the size of a pool so that the whale argument that bigger pools are good...is something I don't think is realistic or that it leads to more players betting more money.

And yes, the whales with the higher ROI's regardless of whether they win or lose wind up knocking out the casual fan and non rebated fan much quicker causing them to be disillusioned faster.

But right now, I can't say that I wouldn't want to be a whale. Of course I would, and since I'm a capitalist, I hold nothing against their practice.

However, that is why my position is to give rebates or reduce takeouts, the same for everyone.
In fact, if anything, it makes more sense to give the dumbest money the biggest rebates so that they will play longer and maybe put in more than they are putting in now.

The object for the horseplayer is to get the dumb money back, not drive it away.

[chickenhead]

If it is made easy enough through rebates for serious and well capitalized players to suck money out of the pools the effective take on the casual player gets very high.

It's already very easy. RGS is never effected by any of this turmoil, they always get their rates, the players always get their rebates.

The problem with rebates isn't that they exist, it's their exclusivity, imo. And the industry talks out of both sides of their mouths...i.e. they want to make sure the playing field is level, yet they don;t like the idea of anyone give rebates to lower level folks.

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2007/August/02/TrackNet-Media-reaches-agreement-with-offshore-betting-companies.aspx

The new standards prohibit Elite and RGS from offering rebates to bettors who wager less than $1-million annually. Rebate shops such as Elite and RGS lure high-stakes gamblers by rebating a percentage of their bets.

Daruty said TrackNet is developing standards to make sure the playing field is as level as possible for all bettors.

My ass! The industry needs to get out of the way, and let the ADWs themselves figure out what sort of return rebates get from various handle level bettors.

[DeanT]

The oft cited report by a gambling expert and paid for by racing speaks of winners like they should be spoken - important in all skill games. There are others that speak of them like this as well, including the Eclipse Award winning article "the carrot that can save racing"

Finally, where do we draw the line? How high is up? What is winning “too much”?
What is an acceptable rate of return? +1%? -8%? -12%? -18%? How do we make that determination? And what do we tell our fans? I believe that is a slippery slope down which we
should fear to tread. Handicapping is a game that attracts customers because it can be beaten. To
draw another parallel with the casino industry, they know full well that if they want to keep the
business coming in, some customers have to win. Not “win for a while, then lose it back,” but
win, period -- and this is their money they’re giving up, not the other players’. The example of a
few winners stimulates many more to try their luck. All the more important, I believe, for
Thoroughbred racing to position itself as a game at which some people win.

[sjk]

The winners will never get anyone to believe that they are not liars.

[highnote]

As I wrote in my paradigm piece, in the big picture, I don't think it matters how the pie is divvied up or who benefits or loses. Given all the possible combinations of the available ingredients put into the mix by the current stake holders eventually everyone is going to lose. The current model is probably not sustainable.

If one party benefits, some other party is going to suffer. A given party can only suffer for so long before they capitulate.

There seems to be no shortage of owners willing to enter the game. But there does seem to be a shortage of new players. Players provide the funding.

It isn't clear whether lowering takeout will benefit anyone but the players. If the players benefit, but the tracks, ADWs and horsemen suffer then that model is not sustainable.

That is why I feel a paradigm shift is needed -- something entirely new that hasn't been tried before.

We know the betting exchange model is very popular. There is no reason why it shouldn't be legal. There is no reason why they shouldn't be available in the U.S. There is no reason why all stake holders can't benefit from this paradigm shift.

And maybe the betting exchange is not the paradigm shift that is needed. But obviously, the industry needs something new. Off hand I don't know what it is. Slot machines are fine for supporting the tracks and horsemen, but I believe that where slots are subsidizing purses then takeout should be reduced. Why aren't players getting their share of slot subsidies?

If you want to boycott a racetrack, maybe slot subsidized tracks are the ones to boycott until they reduce their takeouts to reasonable levels.

Not saying they should be boycotted, but it is an interesting notion.

[DeanT]

The winners will never get anyone to believe that they are not liars.
SJK, if we look deeper into your sentence, we have what is wrong with racing.

[DeanT]

And maybe the betting exchange is not the paradigm shift that is needed. But obviously, the industry needs something new. Off hand I don't know what it is. Slot machines are fine for supporting the tracks and horsemen, but I believe that where slots are subsidizing purses then takeout should be reduced. Why aren't players getting their share of slot subsidies?



Another strong point John :ThmbUp:. This fits actually to exactly what we are speaking of with our ADW piece at HANA. Let one ADW rebate to get those customers that are price sensitive, let one ADW give free PP's, let one give free whatever. Let each cater to the sophisticated market.

According to smart people "we can not shoehorn all customers into one mechanism and expect to grow".

Betfair has it right. I posted it before, but look at Australia. Two mechanisms on the same interface: 1) Betfair, where you can get a 5-2 horse, perhaps at 7-2,cutting rakes on those who want to do that 2) Betfair's deal with tote, where if you want to play in the pools at 16% takeouts on whatever bets you can.

Both are available, with all tracks, all in one account. Two types of customers, two types of betting and takeouts.

Here is the ad. Hell it even looks fun and smart.

http://www.betfair.com.au/promo/index-tote.asp?rfr=4549&sid=9

In our racing I think we can do that with ADW. If a player wants to get cash rebates back and is serious about the game he can, let's let him. If he wants coupons for free coffees and dinners instead, let's give him reward points. If he wants a flashy interface, give it to him. But all three are different. We are shoehorning them into one thing - and even that (ADW's can not sign all tracks) is broken. We cant even do that right!

[sjk]

There seems to be no shortage of owners willing to enter the game.



I would not take this for granted. I did not buy at the July sale for the first time in many years.

The economics of horse ownership has never been good but it is worsening significantly and owner dropout will take place.

Whether enough new people come in to take their place remains to be seen.

To the extent that smaller local tracks close you will lose owners in those areas because much of the joy of owning a horse is being able to go see it race.

[DeanT]

The costs associated with owning are a whole other issue, imo. Something that the industry has to get ahold of with some forward thinking as well.

I often joke that I "put my vets daughter through University" and it frankly is pretty close.

But it has nothing to do with bettors. Purses were up last year while betting was down. The systemic changes needed for owners are completely outside the pari mutuel system, imo. Adding $300 to a purse by getting 7% from ADW instead of 5% will not fix this problem - it will just go to paying $100 for a $5 bottle of adequan, and all the other assorted nonsense.

[highnote]

The main problem I have with betfair is that they have never had the best interests of the U.S. racing industry in mind -- only their own.

If they cared about U.S. racing they would have found a way to put some of the money bet on U.S. races back into the pockets of the people and companies that put on the show.

I always wanted to start an exchange that would help horsemen, players and tracks and also make it possible for other ADWs to benefit by being able to run their own exchanges.

Some people may think I'm too altruistic to be a capitalist. However, I believe that you make the most money when you help others do the same.

[DeanT]

The main problem I have with betfair is that they have never had the best interests of the U.S. racing industry in mind -- only their own.

If they cared about U.S. racing they would have found a way to put some of the money bet on U.S. races back into the pockets of the people and companies that put on the show.

I always wanted to start an exchange that would help horsemen, players and tracks and also make it possible for other ADWs to benefit by being able to run their own exchanges.

Some people may think I'm too altruistic to be a capitalist. However, I believe that you make the most money when you help others do the same.

john , they have been asking for a deal for eons. It might be finally here. US resisted, not them:

http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/46224.htm?id=46224

Betfair, U.S. Horsemen Continue Talks
Email (javascript:popup('http://www.bloodhorse.com/email_article.asp?id=46224','520','580')) Print (http://www.bloodhorse.com/viewstory_plain.asp?id=46224) RSS (http://www.bloodhorse.com/rss)
by Tom LaMarra
Date Posted: July 19, 2008
Last Updated: July 23, 2008 Betfair, the Great Britain-based online betting exchange, continues to negotiate with officials in the United States and is inching closer to a deal by which it would compensate horsemen for use of their product.

[Cangamble]

I actually wouldn't mind paying an extra point or point and a half at Betfair if they started taking US customers and created more liquidity.
My biggest problem is liquidity.

[highnote]

john , they have been asking for a deal for eons. It might be finally here. US resisted, not them:

http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/46224.htm?id=46224


They've also been willing to take bets on U.S. racing for eons without giving back to the industry -- something I never would have done.

[Cangamble]

They've also been willing to take bets on U.S. racing for eons without giving back to the industry -- something I never would have done.
The fact that they've tried is good enough for me.
Do you have a problem with sports bookies that don't give a dime back to MLB, the NFL, the NBA? The NBA won't accept money from bookies or places like Betfair. Does that mean we should take a stand and not bet on the NBA?

[trigger]

As I wrote in my paradigm piece, in the big picture, I don't think it matters how the pie is divvied up or who benefits or loses. Given all the possible combinations of the available ingredients put into the mix by the current stake holders eventually everyone is going to lose. The current model is probably not sustainable.

If one party benefits, some other party is going to suffer. A given party can only suffer for so long before they capitulate.

There seems to be no shortage of owners willing to enter the game. But there does seem to be a shortage of new players. Players provide the funding.

It isn't clear whether lowering takeout will benefit anyone but the players. If the players benefit, but the tracks, ADWs and horsemen suffer then that model is not sustainable.

That is why I feel a paradigm shift is needed -- something entirely new that hasn't been tried before.

We know the betting exchange model is very popular. There is no reason why it shouldn't be legal. There is no reason why they shouldn't be available in the U.S. There is no reason why all stake holders can't benefit from this paradigm shift.

And maybe the betting exchange is not the paradigm shift that is needed. But obviously, the industry needs something new. Off hand I don't know what it is. Slot machines are fine for supporting the tracks and horsemen, but I believe that where slots are subsidizing purses then takeout should be reduced. Why aren't players getting their share of slot subsidies?

If you want to boycott a racetrack, maybe slot subsidized tracks are the ones to boycott until they reduce their takeouts to reasonable levels.

Not saying they should be boycotted, but it is an interesting notion.

Lowering takeout(say,for starters, 5% to an average of 15%) will quickly reduce the number of tracks. The remaining tracks should then be able to thrive and compete in the gambling arena due to lower takeout even if the handle only stays the same. Although the shakeout as tracks close will be very difficult for the individuals involved, IMHO this is the only way racing can survive in the long run.

[Cangamble]

Lowering takeout(say,for starters, 5% to an average of 15%) will quickly reduce the number of tracks. The remaining tracks should then be able to thrive and compete in the gambling arena due to lower takeout even if the handle only stays the same. Although the shakeout as tracks close will be very difficult for the individuals involved, IMHO this is the only way racing can survive in the long run.
Why would lowering takeout kill tracks? Our contention is that people would bet at least 33% more, but probably much more than that.

[Charlie D]

They've also been willing to take bets on U.S. racing for eons without giving back to the industry -- something I never would have done.


John


All you would have done is pushed the wannabe US racing bettors money somewhere else

If i can't bet on Hollywood, Del Mar, SA via BF i don't bet into pools, as i will not stand being ripped off.

I go and bet on Monmouth, Prid, Praire, Ascot , Sandown Lonchamp etc, etc

BY blocking you get sweet FA, but through negotiation, you get a slice of the pie and it is this US racing must do

[highnote]

Charlie,
I don't get your points.

John


All you would have done is pushed the wannabe US racing bettors money somewhere else


What wannabe US racing bettors? Do you mean people who live in the U.S. but can't bet on certain U.S. racetracks? Or do you mean non-U.S. people who would bet on other events if they couldn't bet on U.S. races?


If i can't bet on Hollywood, Del Mar, SA via BF i don't bet into pools, as i will not stand being ripped off.

You mean you will only bet into the U.S. tote pools if you can also bet into the BF pools?

How are you being ripped off? By betting into BF pools only on U.S. races, you, in turn, are ripping off U.S. horsemen, tracks, ADWs and horseplayers. If not for tracks and horsemen putting on the show and horseplayers betting into U.S. pools you would have no U.S. racing event on which to bet.

I don't see how two wrongs make a right. You're doing exactly what you say is being done to you. How does that make you or the situation any better?




BY blocking you get sweet FA, but through negotiation, you get a slice of the pie and it is this US racing must do

What do you mean blocking? What is "sweet FA"?

What negotiation and by whom? Who gets a slice of the pie and what pie?

If "US racing must do" something, what is it?

Sorry to have so many questions, but I just don't understand your post.

[Charlie D]

John

Here's one Book - 130% - This is PMU

Here's another book - 104% -This is Betfair


Which book as bettor am i better off betting into?


Which is more attractive to potential bettors???

[highnote]

Why would lowering takeout kill tracks? Our contention is that people would bet at least 33% more, but probably much more than that.


Therein lies the problem, CG. It is a contention that people would bet 33% more. It needs to be found out if it is true.

There is a simple way to find out. Racetracks and/or ADWs could have second tote pool that has a 10% takeout on straight bets.

Customers would be able to bet into either one, say for a period of two years. This would give the track time to promote it.

Then compare the results of the betting into the second pool to the results of the betting into the higher takeout straight pools.

One problem is, what racetrack is going to take this risk?

[chickenhead]

There is a simple way to find out. Racetracks and/or ADWs could have second tote pool that has a 10% takeout on straight bets.

Customers would be able to bet into either one, say for a period of two years.

I thnk that experiment has been going on for some time now...except they call it "offshore bookmakers". Between that and the big rebate entities contributing better than 50% of total handle, I think the results are conclusive.

[DeanT]

In your piece I think you said all we need to do John. Opening up the market and expanding it. You said "discount brokers came around and old brokers had to compete". And compete they did. Stock trading is more mainstream, and exchange volumes are better than ever, by about a factor of 10. A stay at home mom can buy ten shares of Cisco for 10 bucks before she picks up her kids from daycare now - that is a good thing. The brokerage industry had no stats to go on, but they were forced to do it. They were forced to go mainstream.

[highnote]

John

Here's one Book - 130% - This is PMU

Here's another book - 104% -This is Betfair


Which book as bettor am i better off betting into?


Which is more attractive to potential bettors???


Those are interesting questions and I'll answer them even though you haven't answered the ones I asked of you.

It may appear that the bettor is better off betting the 104% book on BF.

However, if the racetrack ends up going out of business because there is not enough money being bet on their product to allow them to keep putting on the show, then who is better off?

Both parties are long term losers. The track goes out of business, people become unemployed at the track and at BF (BF doesn't need people to reconcile bets that aren't being made) and the bettor has one less wagering option.

This is the problem with short term thinking.

And both parties are part of the problem. Both are guilty of short term thinking.

Someone has to step up and rise above the fray and be the voice of reason and see the big, long term picture.

There is very little to stop me from starting a betting exchange in the Caribbean and take bets on UK racing and put nothing into the Levy fund. UK racing would get zero benefit from my company.

It could be done and it would make a lot of money for the company. But is that the way to a better industry or to serve the greater good?

[DeanT]

I thnk that experiment has been going on for some time now...except they call it "offshore bookmakers". Between that and the big rebate entities contributing better than 50% of total handle, I think the results are conclusive.

Absolutely. It is all the empirical evidence that they need.

[highnote]

I thnk that experiment has been going on for some time now...except they call it "offshore bookmakers". Between that and the big rebate entities contributing better than 50% of total handle, I think the results are conclusive.


That's one way of looking at it. I was thinking more in terms of on-track handle and non-rebate handle.

[DeanT]

Those are interesting questions and I'll answer them even though you haven't answered the ones I asked of you.

It may appear that the bettor is better off betting the 104% book on BF.

However, if the racetrack ends up going out of business because there is not enough money being bet on their product to allow them to keep putting on the show, then who is better off?

Both parties are long term losers. The track goes out of business, people become unemployed at the track and at BF (BF doesn't need people to reconcile bets that aren't being made) and the bettor has one less wagering option.

This is the problem with short term thinking.

And both parties are part of the problem. Both are guilty of short term thinking.

Someone has to step up and rise above the fray and be the voice of reason and see the big, long term picture.

There is very little to stop me from starting a betting exchange in the Caribbean and take bets on UK racing and put nothing into the Levy fund. UK racing would get zero benefit from my company.

It could be done and it would make a lot of money for the company. But is that the way to a better industry or to serve the greater good?

It is all happening already John. In Australia they have a deal (Tasmania actually) and BF contributed about $15M to purses thus far. And that has not changed the amount bet on TOTE. No one is going out of business, the pie is growing larger.

[Charlie D]

John, sorry mate, not enough time to aswer your questions fully at moment, so thought that short post would help


I'll come back later and answer your question

[highnote]

It is all happening already John. In Australia they have a deal (Tasmania actually) and BF contributed about $15M to purses thus far. And that has not changed the amount bet on TOTE. No one is going out of business, the pie is growing larger.


And how much have they contributed to U.S. racing so far?

My problem with them is that they were willing to take bets on U.S. racing in the first place. That speaks volumns about them. Then they say to the U.S. industry , "Please let us in. We'll give you a cut of the money and if you don't let us in we'll keep taking bets on your product and give you nothing."

They know that betting on U.S. races into U.S. pools is how racetracks and horsemen are able to put on the show. But they are more interested in their bottom line than on serving the greater good. That is my philosophical problem with them.

But apparantly not everyone shares my views. So I'm willing to listen to counter arguments.

[DeanT]

Oh ok. It is philisophical rather than growing the game. I misunderstood. I thought reading your Paradigm shift article I was speaking with someone else :)

Fair point. I hardly think they are altruistic. In fairness tho, they did try to being racing the business model back when they started. They got the door slammed in their face. We seem to enjoy doing that in this business dont we?

[highnote]

Oh ok. It is philisophical rather than growing the game. I misunderstood. I thought reading your Paradigm shift article I was speaking with someone else :)

Fair point. I hardly think they are altruistic. In fairness tho, they did try to being racing the business model back when they started. They got the door slammed in their face. We seem to enjoy doing that in this business dont we?


Just because they got the door slammed in their face does that mean they should contribute to the decline of the U.S. racing industry? How are they better than those that slammed the door in their face?

I understand business, I run one. I understand that you need to make money. But there are also moral obligations. It's not always just about the money. If it was just about the money, I could make a lot more money as a hitman than working for public TV. :D

For me, if I can't make the world a better place, then what is the point of living.

My definition of success:

It feels good.
It's good for you.
It's good for others.
It servers the greater good.

[Charlie D]

Charlie,
I don't get your points.




[QUOTE] What wannabe US racing bettors? Do you mean people who live in the U.S. but can't bet on certain U.S. racetracks? Or do you mean non-U.S. people who would bet on other events if they couldn't bet on U.S. races?


I mean those wanting to bet on US racing


You mean you will only bet into the U.S. tote pools if you can also bet into the BF pools?

No, i will not entertain pool betting, Period, as i have no control over the price at which my investents are made

How are you being ripped off?

See above, the US Tote is an uncompetive monopoly

Over here i have, Exchanges, bookies, Tote all competiting for my dollar, the one who offers the best deal gets it


By betting into BF pools only on U.S. races, you, in turn, are ripping off U.S. horsemen, tracks, ADWs and horseplayers. If not for tracks and horsemen putting on the show and horseplayers betting into U.S. pools you would have no U.S. racing event on which to bet.



Only people ripping off the Horsemen and tracks are themselves via lack of vision






What do you mean blocking? What is "sweet FA"?

Cal racing stopped BF putting up markets , all this does is drive bettors to the markets they do offer, so in doing so, Cal racing get nothing, nadda, zilch

What negotiation and by whom? Who gets a slice of the pie and what pie?

If "US racing must do" something, what is it?



Racing rulers need to negotiate with BF to get some of the money BF are making from US racing


Hope that explains John, if not, let me know

[highnote]

Oh ok. It is philisophical rather than growing the game. I misunderstood. I thought reading your Paradigm shift article I was speaking with someone else :)

Fair point. I hardly think they are altruistic. In fairness tho, they did try to being racing the business model back when they started. They got the door slammed in their face. We seem to enjoy doing that in this business dont we?


Don't get me wrong. I'm all for betting exchanges. I just think they should support the industry by returning a portion of their handle to tracks and horsemen in the same way licensed pari-mutuel companies do.

What if I start an offshore pari-mutuel and betting exchange company with 0% takeout and rely on advertising for income and the company takes bets on every racing venue in the world and I return 0% to the industry, but instead keep all the money for my company and pay myself a huge salary.

So what if I get rich. What good have I done?

[trigger]

Why would lowering takeout kill tracks? Our contention is that people would bet at least 33% more, but probably much more than that.
OK, you asked for it. Here's my theory:
the lowering of takeout to 15% would , at best, only keep total overall wagering handle at current levels (i.e. offsetting the impending overall reduction in future handle) but would be very important in keeping players in the game.

If takeout is reduced, the smaller poorly capitalized tracks should be the first to go (same handle as today; lower takeout) and at least some of their handle would accrue to the remaining tracks. Handle transferred from the closed tracks would enable the remaining tracks to survive (until takeout has to be reduced again to meet competition and the cycle begins again).
The ADWs and OTBs would have to cope with the lower takeout also....survival of the fittest would be the rule.
It's probable the same scenario will occur if the average takeout remains at 20%--it will just take longer (or maybe sooner?).

[Charlie D]

See above, the US Tote is an uncompetive monopoly

Over here i have, Exchanges, bookies, Tote all competiting for my dollar, the one who offers the best deal gets it





You as US bettors should have the exact same choices too, just like you choose who to vote for, which car you buy, which tv etc etc

[Cangamble]

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for betting exchanges. I just think they should support the industry by returning a portion of their handle to tracks and horsemen in the same way licensed pari-mutuel companies do.

What if I start an offshore pari-mutuel and betting exchange company with 0% takeout and rely on advertising for income and the company takes bets on every racing venue in the world and I return 0% to the industry, but instead keep all the money for my company and pay myself a huge salary.

So what if I get rich. What good have I done?
You are allowed to your ethical opinion, but I don't share it. I pretty much look at things as either be illegal or not.
I have no problem with Betfair taking horse racing bets.
I don't feel I owe the industry anything...and that includes being altruistic to it.
I think if racing even tried to compete for my betting money, I might lean towards your way of thinking.

[Cangamble]

OK, you asked for it. Here's my theory:
the lowering of takeout to 15% would , at best, only keep total overall wagering handle at current levels (i.e. offsetting the impending overall reduction in future handle) but would be very important in keeping players in the game.

If takeout is reduced, the smaller poorly capitalized tracks should be the first to go (same handle as today; lower takeout) and at least some of their handle would accrue to the remaining tracks. Handle transferred from the closed tracks would enable the remaining tracks to survive (until takeout has to be reduced again to meet competition and the cycle begins again).
The ADWs and OTBs would have to cope with the lower takeout also....survival of the fittest would be the rule.
It's probable the same scenario will occur if the average takeout remains at 20%--it will just take longer (or maybe sooner?).
I'm not basing my assumption on whether further decline will occur if things remain the same. We could be close to the bottom. Who knows? I know the trend is down right now though.
But assuming no further declines, I think it is a gimme that people will bet back whatever extra comes there way on top of what they bet today.
The wild card is that people may bet more and forego poker or some lottery bets etc. and possibly start bringing friends and family to the tracks again.

[highnote]

You are allowed to your ethical opinion, but I don't share it. I pretty much look at things as either be illegal or not.
I have no problem with Betfair taking horse racing bets.
I don't feel I owe the industry anything...and that includes being altruistic to it.
I think if racing even tried to compete for my betting money, I might lean towards your way of thinking.


Racing does compete for your money. There are racetracks all over N. America where you can bet. You have your choice. Some people have the choice of multiple ADWs from which to choose. Unfortunately, some do not. HANA to the rescue. :ThmbUp:

Racing and bettors need each other. You can't have one without the other. Well, you could have racetracks, but not very good ones without bettors. And without racetracks bettors would play blackjack or something.

[Charlie D]

. And without racetracks bettors would play blackjack or something.


Indeed, so racing needs to find a way to compete, how does it do this?

Distribute your product, allow people to see it, give them an interesting low price way to play. And they play.

[xtb]

After all, a winner isn't actually a winner unless he is removing money from circulation. The more I think about it, the more I think they would much rather have only losing players in the pools.

How far off base am I with this one?

I think tracks would welcome a player who bets $10 million/year and nets $100k but would feel much differently about a player who bets $200k to net the same $100k. For the average player, I don't think they give a crap either way.

[highnote]

Hope that explains John, if not, let me know

Thanks, Charlie. That explains it.

[highnote]

You are allowed to your ethical opinion, but I don't share it. I pretty much look at things as either be illegal or not.

I can't look at things like that. For example, let's say a young person is drowning and you have to decide whether or not you should jump in the water and save them. You have no legal obligation to do so. But depending on your values you might feel you have a moral obligation to try to save them.

For me, there is a moral obligation to try to help the industry. Just because there are a few short-sighted people in the industry that piss me off, doesn't mean the rest of the hard working horsemen and track workers who try to put on a good show for us to bet on don't deserve some support.

As I said earlier today here or in some other post, I could get an account with a betting exchange if I really wanted to, but I don't see how that helps horseplayers in this country.


I have no problem with Betfair taking horse racing bets.
I don't feel I owe the industry anything...and that includes being altruistic to it.

For me, I don't think it's a matter of me owing the industry anything or feeling they owe me something. It's a two way street. Either we share the street and make it work for both of us or else I won't bet there. That's is the path I hope HANA will follow. If HANA is not able to make some headway on that front then it will be time to stop betting.

I think if racing even tried to compete for my betting money, I might lean towards your way of thinking.

They do. Let's say you have an account with PTC. You have Mountaineer as one betting option among several. However, not all tracks are available on PTC, but you would like to bet those other tracks.

You have to decide whether it is worth your while to try to find a way to bet the other tracks. Do you want to open another ADW account just to bet them? In my opinion Mountaineer outcompeted the other tracks for your money. I know which track I would support.

[GameTheory]

There is something to be said for "getting your foot in the door" even if initial conditions are not ideal. To use another cliche, "the perfect is the enemy of the good". Betfair tried to negotiate with the U.S. tracks, the tracks weren't interested, so they went ahead and allowed betting anyway. After some time and it can be plainly seen that Betfair is raking in the dough, now the tracks may want to talk after all. If Betfair hadn't gone ahead (got their foot in the door), the tracks likely would have NEVER wanted to talk about it.

[highnote]

There is something to be said for "getting your foot in the door" even if initial conditions are not ideal. To use another cliche, "the perfect is the enemy of the good". Betfair tried to negotiate with the U.S. tracks, the tracks weren't interested, so they went ahead and allowed betting anyway. After some time and it can be plainly seen that Betfair is raking in the dough, now the tracks may want to talk after all. If Betfair hadn't gone ahead (got their foot in the door), the tracks likely would have NEVER wanted to talk about it.


It is a complicated issue. I assume some tracks would have liked to have negotiated with them, but there are regulatory problems.

Anyway, you make good points and I have to get ready for the HANA meeting. Will think about this some more.

[Imriledup]

After all, a winner isn't actually a winner unless he is removing money from circulation. The more I think about it, the more I think they would much rather have only losing players in the pools.

How far off base am I with this one?

Lets look at it this way. Lets say that there's a huge carryover in the pick 6 and one person is alive with the longest shot in the race for a 3 million dollar payout. One winner on the third day of a So Cal carryover. The 1 horse is paying out 3,000,000 to one winner. Or, the 2 horse is paying 25,000 to 120 winners. I think its pretty obvious that the track and the racing industry would want the 2 horse to win. If the one horse wins...especially if its a little old lady from pasadena who bet bingo numbers, that 3 mil gets taken out of cirulation, probably for good, since the chances are that the horseplayer who hits it is older and more unlikely to show up the next day betting 50 grand a race.

Now, if the one winner for 3 million is being won by a HUGE bettor who bets an average of 20 million per year, there might be a shot he can bet 40 million........he might be able to bet an extra 20 mil just for that 3 million in his account. So, in that regard, the track would WANT this guy to win the 3 million as he will rebet that 3 mil many times over in the next year or 2. If the little old lady wins it, she might just give some to her grandkids who are not even in the industry and won't ever bet a dollar on any horserace in their lifetimes.

I guess, on the one hand, you can make a legitimate case that the more winning players who just leave the game for whatever reason, there will be more money to go around and more money to distribute amongst different and more players.

I just think that this game has to inherently embrace winning players and not make it 'hard' for them to win. Most people who are introduced to this game are introduced by current players........and if those current players feel they have the deck stacked against them, they aren't going to be telling the person they are bringing to the track the first time that its possible to win.

The game just needs to have better pricing on bets to attract new customers. 20/25 percent takeouts on races is just too high and until that comes down, there just can't be any growth.

[Anderon]

After all, a winner isn't actually a winner unless he is removing money from circulation. The more I think about it, the more I think they would much rather have only losing players in the pools.

How far off base am I with this one?

I agree with you on this one wholeheartedly CJ. I've been banned from making my tremendously large show plays and winning all the time. I can't find a way to make those plays anymore. If you get into their pockets and profit a 100% of the time they will cut you off just like Vegas, they just want your losses but if your a winner consistantly your done !! I've been thru this enough now and it just puts a very bad taste in my mouth on how they control their profits and make you play for the losses !!

[LottaKash]

My definition of success:

It feels good.
It's good for you.
It's good for others.
It servers the greater good.

John, you are my kind of people....God Bless you and Yours...:jump:

best,

[pandy]

The tracks don't care either way, and that's the problem. They should be providing as much information as possible, and trying to keep the racetrack fair (no bias). Some tracks have improved, providing video of past races, and improving their video angles, etc. but overall I've always felt that tracks in general act as if they want to make it tough to win. One thing that bothered me was when some exec at a So. Cal track say that they want to make the races tough so that there is a carryover in the Pick 6. Since most players don't play the pick 6, this seemed like a slap in the face to players, in my opinion. Making it tougher to pick winners is only going to cause more players to cash less tickets and walk away from the sport.

[DanG]

One thing that bothered me was when some exec at a So. Cal track say that they want to make the races tough so that there is a carryover in the Pick 6. Since most players don't play the pick 6, this seemed like a slap in the face to players, in my opinion. Making it tougher to pick winners is only going to cause more players to cash less tickets and walk away from the sport.
There is much truth in that statement, and just like comparing the Vegas of our father’s era with the modern version our society is largely driven by…accountants.

In So Cal the bean counters see a tremendous spike in ALL pools when a large carry-over is present; so they pass along their findings to executives who then influence the racing secretary into making cards resemble a mind field.

One (of several) fallacy’s in track managements approach is they assume a P6 betting syndicate for example has an ATM implanted in their a@@. These are HUMANS who are trying to pool resources to tackle an incredibly difficult and expensive wager. They do and can (and have) tapped out and will look elsewhere to survive.

The widely circulated rumor around So Cal is a good size group has taken their chips and gone overseas and the pools have felt it noticeable. Obviously this is not exclusive with So Cal as racing (the world actually) across the board is taking financial hits.

[Imriledup]

Pandy i respectfully disagree with you.


Pick 6 aside, the racing secretaries job is to card evenly matched competitive races. Horseplayers NEED as many races as they can have where more than 2 horses can actually win. The only real way to make money is to obtain some type of handicapping edge to exploit......but, if all the winners pay 4 bucks and the races are 'easy' its all moot.

If you are a guy who can outhandicap most people, you want the average joe to be able to look at a race and say "my god, this is an impossible race". I believe that's the only way horseplayers can beat the game is to have the racetracks card races that are hard.

Having 'easy' races doesnt' do anyone any good because if everyone knows the winner, how can you make money?

[pandy]

Pandy i respectfully disagree with you.


Pick 6 aside, the racing secretaries job is to card evenly matched competitive races. Horseplayers NEED as many races as they can have where more than 2 horses can actually win. The only real way to make money is to obtain some type of handicapping edge to exploit......but, if all the winners pay 4 bucks and the races are 'easy' its all moot.

If you are a guy who can outhandicap most people, you want the average joe to be able to look at a race and say "my god, this is an impossible race". I believe that's the only way horseplayers can beat the game is to have the racetracks card races that are hard.

Having 'easy' races doesnt' do anyone any good because if everyone knows the winner, how can you make money?

I understand where you're coming from, but I really believe that the best value plays, and longshots, are not in wide open races. For instance, there are plenty of races where there are only a few logical contenders, yet the winner pays $20 or $30. These are the types of races I look for. I tend to play either maiden races, races for limited winners, such as NW1, or claiming races with limited winners, such as NW2L. Usually the favorite is either suspect or simply overbet. Races that are "impossible" such as a competitive 12 horse $75,000 turf claiming race race at Saratoga, full of multiple winners, are impossible and rarely worth betting, unless you're one of a rare breed that can actually handicap a race like that well. Very few people can actually show a long term profit in that type of race.

[dav4463]

I agree with the last post. My best longshot winners come from races where the "logical contenders" lose.

[podonne]

After all, a winner isn't actually a winner unless he is removing money from circulation. The more I think about it, the more I think they would much rather have only losing players in the pools.

How far off base am I with this one?

The original question was, do the tracks want winners.

Every time you make a $1 bet, $0.15 or so disappears from that bet (takeout). So the money distributed out of the pools is 85%. In order to make up for that missing 15%, it can only from new money. Period. Not from the money sent to winners or losers that just bet, new money. So a track doesn't care about winners or losers, just about bringing in new money that is not currently being bet, to replace the amount they just took out.

All the other decisions are made on this. How much takeout should we have? Same question a government asks about a tax, whats the most we can take out while ensuring that the next pool don't shrink by that marginal amount.

Should they lower takeout? I don't know, someone should find out, but don't point to offshores as proof they should. Offer a lower priced on a comoditized product and people will switch to buying it, but the amount of money in circulation hasn't increased.