Lower Minimums Destroy Handle; Magna 5

[samyn on the green]

Here is a good example of lower minimums destroying handle. (http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/editorial/news/article.cgi?id=14025)



This year, the first Magna 5 was on January 24 with handle of only $431,780. This was the second lowest in Magna 5 history, from 50 runnings. On January 31, a new low was set when the Magna 5 only handled $402,677 -- the lowest ever -- until last week when a new low was set as the Magna 5 dipped below $400K for the first time; $399,437.

In 2007, the 10 runnings of the Magna 5 averaged $589,411 with one carryover week. In 2008, the nine runnings of the Magna 5 averaged $535,019 with one carryover week. So far this year, the three runnings of the Magna 5 averaged $415,608, which is a 22.32 percent decline from the 2008 averages and a 29.49 percent from 2007. Considering that total handle nationwide in the month of January was only down 2 percent and that Gulfstream, which usually hosts at least two of the races, has shown increases in business this year, it would make sense that these declines are due to the lowering of the $2 bet minimum to $1.

[rjorio]

It cannot be argued that PK6 carryovers do not guarantee dramatic pool increases, but as to the Magna PK5 , race selection and placement may be responsible for pool decline. There is no reason not to offer a fifty cent minimum on a non carryover bet like the PK4.

[Bubba X]

It cannot be argued that PK6 carryovers do not guarantee dramatic pool increases, but as to the Magna PK5 , race selection and placement may be responsible for pool decline. There is no reason not to offer a fifty cent minimum on a non carryover bet like the PK4.

I think maybe there is.

Say the base wager on a p-4 is $1 with no $.50 bet available.. No one has 4 of 4. So, they pay off on 3 of 4. The pool (less takeout, of course) gets paid.

Now, say the base wager is $1 with $.50 available. There are no $1 tickets with 4 of 4. There is one $.50 ticket with 4 of 4. The $.50 ticket gets paid 1/2 of the net pool.

What happens to the other 1/2 of the pool?

[samyn on the green]

Seriously if a 50 cent ticket gets the whole pool, he gets the whole pool. The payout would read $200,000 for a $1 pick4 and the 50 cent ticket holder would collect $100,000 in the $100,000(minus takeout) pool. I think maybe there is.

Say the base wager on a p-4 is $1 with no $.50 bet available.. No one has 4 of 4. So, they pay off on 3 of 4. The pool (less takeout, of course) gets paid.

Now, say the base wager is $1 with $.50 available. There are no $1 tickets with 4 of 4. There is one $.50 ticket with 4 of 4. The $.50 ticket gets paid 1/2 of the net pool.

What happens to the other 1/2 of the pool?

[rjorio]

The entire pool minus takeout is always paid out .Ther is no PK4 carryover.

[Bubba X]

Seriously if a 50 cent ticket gets the whole pool, he gets the whole pool. The payout would read $200,000 for a $1 pick4 and the 50 cent ticket holder would collect $100,000 in the $100,000(minus takeout) pool.Are you certain of that?

Does the same hold true on a $.10 superfecta?

[ryesteve]

Are you certain of that?

Does the same hold true on a $.10 superfecta?
Yes, and yes.

[Bubba X]

ok, thanks and thanks.

[cj]

I think maybe there is.

Say the base wager on a p-4 is $1 with no $.50 bet available.. No one has 4 of 4. So, they pay off on 3 of 4. The pool (less takeout, of course) gets paid.

Now, say the base wager is $1 with $.50 available. There are no $1 tickets with 4 of 4. There is one $.50 ticket with 4 of 4. The $.50 ticket gets paid 1/2 of the net pool.

What happens to the other 1/2 of the pool?

Wow! You honestly thought half the pool didn't get paid?

[Bubba X]

Wow! You honestly thought half the pool didn't get paid?Yes, honestly. I've never bet a superfecta or a p-3 or p-4 in my life. Glad to wow you.

[Steve 'StatMan']

I'm thinking the 15-20% drop in handle might reflect the overall drop in handle nationwide, more than the change in the minimum bet size.

[cj]

I'm thinking the 15-20% drop in handle might reflect the overall drop in handle nationwide, more than the change in the minimum bet size.

I was thinking the exact same thing. Also, I assume it is a little tougher for some people to get a bet down on Magna tracks this year.

[point given]

The entire pool minus takeout is always paid out .Ther is no PK4 carryover.
Except in New jersey where there is a carryover to the next p4.

[turfnsport]

I'm pretty sure the only possible explanation for the Magna 5 handle to be off would be because of weather and the economy.

Any track exec will tell you Mother Nature and the Stimulus Plan are our only hope to turn this ship around. :D

[macguy]

Are you certain of that?

Does the same hold true on a $.10 superfecta?


That's why you will sometimes see the payouts paying more than the total pool.

[ezrabrooks]

I think maybe there is.

Say the base wager on a p-4 is $1 with no $.50 bet available.. No one has 4 of 4. So, they pay off on 3 of 4. The pool (less takeout, of course) gets paid.

Now, say the base wager is $1 with $.50 available. There are no $1 tickets with 4 of 4. There is one $.50 ticket with 4 of 4. The $.50 ticket gets paid 1/2 of the net pool.

What happens to the other 1/2 of the pool?

What? Your not serious?

Ez

[rrbauer]

SOTG:
How much of the decline is a continuation of the trend that started last year:

"In 2007, the 10 runnings of the Magna 5 averaged $589,411 with one carryover week. In 2008, the nine runnings of the Magna 5 averaged $535,019 with one carryover week. So far this year, the three runnings of the Magna 5 averaged $415,608, which is a 22.32 percent decline from the 2008 averages and a 29.49 percent from 2007."

And, how much of the trend is due to other factors: Economy in the toilet, reduced price to participate, dumb bet, high takeout, etc. is conjecture.

I think you should take your logic to the people at Magna and convince them to raise the minimum bet to $3 or $5 and watch the handle soar!

[Bennie]

I think all the sensible reasons mentioned so far have part to do with it, but would like to add the reason I haven't put much into this bet so far. The fact that they have scheduled "crap" races in the mix. I look at some of the races, scratch my head and say "not with my money". If they would schedule races like "all stakes" I would love to test the waters. It's a rock and hard place. They are looking for tough races where no-one can hit so the pools carry-over to big numbers but the races are so bad no-one wants to play. Who wants to have to hit the "all" button on 2 or 3 races?

[HUSKER55]

I don't think the size of the minimum bet is the problem. For example, let us assume the minimum bet is $5 and exactas are $2 and exoctics are $1. People will not make as many bets as before and will get very select in which races they are willing to play.


For example, under those terms I would imagine the majority of betters won't bet any race that is not a $30,000 allowance or better. What happens to the rest of the races? Or say everyone decided not to bet anymore maiden anything? No claimers less than $50K. I think you get my point.

I tend to think it is a multitude of other problems. The economy is taking its toll for sure. Not attracting enough younger bettors is another. The cost structure of going to the races. Park your car, buy a program, buy a form and then there is the price of refreshments and then throw in your betting money and the appeal is not for the family and the list goes on.

I enjoy the sport but it is not for the easily intimidated. I wish I had some ideas on the solution that would be fair and would work. I don't, but I don't think raising minimum bets will solve the problem.

JMHO

[garyoz]

Need to control for national betting trends, the trend at individual tracks, field size, and perhaps even for quality of races, (probably more)then test for levels of statisitical significance before making the assertion of causation between betting limits and handle.

[Imriledup]

The only reason to play the MP5 was because it was a 2 dollar bet. If you have the ability to sink 5 to 10k into the magna pick 5, you WANT it to be 2 dollars, that makes it twice as hard to hit. (which means you get more if you hit it)

Making the bet a 1 dollar bet, you may as well play the pick 4. Its also a 1 dollar bet with 1 less race.

No reason to lower minimums. If you can't afford a 2 dollar bet, you bet on something you CAN afford.

No law that says every gambler must be able to afford every bet.

[OverlayHunter]

It's not a wager I follow but wouldn't the Vegas blackout have lowered the handle some?

[Steve 'StatMan']

Certainly could have had an effect as well. Hopefully some of that handle will come back now, we'll see if this week goes up a bit the next week or two.

[Vinman]

I for one applaud the reduction of the Magna 5 minimum to a buck. IMHO, They finally got it right. This wager rarely generated a carryover at the $2 minimum anyway, so there was really no point in $2 other than to make it more annoying to play....ie more difficult to cover the combos you wanted to cover. I'd much rather go after a Pick 4 where I had a real chance. I for one am much more likely to play the M5 now.

Quite frankly, I could care less about the "non-catastrophic" falloff in handle. I was expecting it to drop by a lot more than it has. All I really care about is that the pool is plently large enough to make a megascore. As mentioned by others, there are a number of possible factors at work in the falloff in handle, most notably the economy. Did anyone mention the inclusion of as many as three races run over synthetic tracks....one at GG and as many as two at SA? Last year it was just the GG race unless it was on turf.

To make this wager "the best it can be" what they need to do, as one poster mentioned, it get rid of the "not with my money" races, like 6 1/2 F down the hill where half the field are either firsters or have no turf experience. Ugh.

What each track should do is put up their largest field of non-maiden races. Use stakes only when the fields are full....say 9 or more horses. Also try giving Santa Anita just one race instead of two, let Gulfstream be the two race track, since they have more "full field" races to draw from. Having one less "synthetic" race in the mix might actually help the handle a bit.

Finally, when the $2 minimum was in play, any M5 payoff over $5,000 resulted in not only a "signer", but a huge chunk of your winnings being withheld until tax refund time the following year. With the $1 minimum, they now can't withhold that nasty 30% until the payoff on a ONE dollar wager reaches $5,000, essentially doubling the "under the radar" range for withholding purposes to $10,000 for a deuce! Ain't it cool?

Let's take this concept one step further. Guess what a Pick 4 at Gulfstream's 50 cent minimum has to pay on a TWO DOLLAR wager (which of course no one of sound mind would ever purchase) in order for tax to be withheld from your winnings?? You are correct if you said $20,000! So if you hit for $4,988 on a 50 cent ticket, they must give you ALL your winnings. This is why the Gulfstream 50 cent Pick 4 is my favorite bet.

Now, is there anyone who wants the $2 minimum back for the Magna 5?

Vinman

[HUSKER55]

Doesn't the $1 pick 4 and the $0.50 pick 4 have seperate pools? If no one had the winner in the dollar pool wouldn't you have a carry over even though there was a winner in the $0.50 pools.

Why would anyone pay $1 per ticket when he can get everything for fifty cents?

Just curious.

Thanks

[BombsAway Bob]

Doesn't the $1 pick 4 and the $0.50 pick 4 have seperate pools? If no one had the winner in the dollar pool wouldn't you have a carry over even though there was a winner in the $0.50 pools.
Why would anyone pay $1 per ticket when he can get everything for fifty cents?
Just curious.
Thanks
there's only ONE pick-4 pool per sequence. Why anyone would play for a buck ontrack instead of a .50 cent ticket punched twice is beyond me. (Note, if you play thru an ADW, you will be taxed on the TOTAL RACE Winnings, so two fitty cent tix will still require Uncle Sam to take your electronic signature.)

[Imriledup]

I for one applaud the reduction of the Magna 5 minimum to a buck. IMHO, They finally got it right. This wager rarely generated a carryover at the $2 minimum anyway, so there was really no point in $2 other than to make it more annoying to play....ie more difficult to cover the combos you wanted to cover. I'd much rather go after a Pick 4 where I had a real chance. I for one am much more likely to play the M5 now.

Quite frankly, I could care less about the "non-catastrophic" falloff in handle. I was expecting it to drop by a lot more than it has. All I really care about is that the pool is plently large enough to make a megascore. As mentioned by others, there are a number of possible factors at work in the falloff in handle, most notably the economy. Did anyone mention the inclusion of as many as three races run over synthetic tracks....one at GG and as many as two at SA? Last year it was just the GG race unless it was on turf.

To make this wager "the best it can be" what they need to do, as one poster mentioned, it get rid of the "not with my money" races, like 6 1/2 F down the hill where half the field are either firsters or have no turf experience. Ugh.

What each track should do is put up their largest field of non-maiden races. Use stakes only when the fields are full....say 9 or more horses. Also try giving Santa Anita just one race instead of two, let Gulfstream be the two race track, since they have more "full field" races to draw from. Having one less "synthetic" race in the mix might actually help the handle a bit.

Finally, when the $2 minimum was in play, any M5 payoff over $5,000 resulted in not only a "signer", but a huge chunk of your winnings being withheld until tax refund time the following year. With the $1 minimum, they now can't withhold that nasty 30% until the payoff on a ONE dollar wager reaches $5,000, essentially doubling the "under the radar" range for withholding purposes to $10,000 for a deuce! Ain't it cool?

Let's take this concept one step further. Guess what a Pick 4 at Gulfstream's 50 cent minimum has to pay on a TWO DOLLAR wager (which of course no one of sound mind would ever purchase) in order for tax to be withheld from your winnings?? You are correct if you said $20,000! So if you hit for $4,988 on a 50 cent ticket, they must give you ALL your winnings. This is why the Gulfstream 50 cent Pick 4 is my favorite bet.

Now, is there anyone who wants the $2 minimum back for the Magna 5?

Vinman

Great post Vin!

I've always wondered if racetracks were breaking a law by forcing patrons to 'sign' for winnings? We all 'sign' for it because that's what we are 'supposed to do' but i've always wondered if the racetracks are doing something illegal by holding our winnings hostage. After all, its the IRS that we are 'supposed' to pay taxes to, not racetracks. How does a private company get authority to withhold winnings from citizens?

[Pace Cap'n]

Great post Vin!

I've always wondered if racetracks were breaking a law by forcing patrons to 'sign' for winnings? We all 'sign' for it because that's what we are 'supposed to do' but i've always wondered if the racetracks are doing something illegal by holding our winnings hostage. After all, its the IRS that we are 'supposed' to pay taxes to, not racetracks. How does a private company get authority to withhold winnings from citizens?

The IRS directs the track to withold, in the same sense that they direct an employer to withold. The tracks don't get to hold it for long, as they must remit it to the IRS fairly soon.

[Imriledup]

The IRS directs the track to withold, in the same sense that they direct an employer to withold. The tracks don't get to hold it for long, as they must remit it to the IRS fairly soon.

I'm not necessarily talking about withheld money....im talking about signing for money that has no withholding.

[Pace Cap'n]

I'm not necessarily talking about withheld money....im talking about signing for money that has no withholding.

The same answer would apply in this case as well. The tracks are required by the tax code to furnish this information to the IRS.

[Zman179]

I for one applaud the reduction of the Magna 5 minimum to a buck. IMHO, They finally got it right. This wager rarely generated a carryover at the $2 minimum anyway, so there was really no point in $2 other than to make it more annoying to play....ie more difficult to cover the combos you wanted to cover. I'd much rather go after a Pick 4 where I had a real chance. I for one am much more likely to play the M5 now.

Quite frankly, I could care less about the "non-catastrophic" falloff in handle. I was expecting it to drop by a lot more than it has. All I really care about is that the pool is plently large enough to make a megascore. As mentioned by others, there are a number of possible factors at work in the falloff in handle, most notably the economy. Did anyone mention the inclusion of as many as three races run over synthetic tracks....one at GG and as many as two at SA? Last year it was just the GG race unless it was on turf.

Vinman

On the business side however, it's terrible. If lower wagering minimums result in lower handles, and lower takeouts fail to drum up enough business to offset the revenue loss, then what financial future do we have as horseplayers? The incentive for track owners to reduce their margins for our benefit is dwindling by the day.

[Indulto]

Assuming the same level of participation from 2008 would have reduced handle on the wager by 50%, it would seem that 2009 participation has actually increased, but will now require a more attractive series of races to grow. Magna doesn’t need anyone else’s permission to schedule races to fit, so there’s no excuse for them not using five large-field, higher purse races, and stakes whenever possible. If the fields are large and competitive, they will get carryovers. Does anyone know how the $1 P5 at the 2007 Oak Tree meet fared? Did it reduce the P6 handle? Is Magna afraid the P6 pools at participating tracks will be cannibalized by the M5?

[boomman]

I for one applaud the reduction of the Magna 5 minimum to a buck. IMHO, They finally got it right. This wager rarely generated a carryover at the $2 minimum anyway, so there was really no point in $2 other than to make it more annoying to play....ie more difficult to cover the combos you wanted to cover. I'd much rather go after a Pick 4 where I had a real chance. I for one am much more likely to play the M5 now.

Quite frankly, I could care less about the "non-catastrophic" falloff in handle. I was expecting it to drop by a lot more than it has. All I really care about is that the pool is plently large enough to make a megascore. As mentioned by others, there are a number of possible factors at work in the falloff in handle, most notably the economy. Did anyone mention the inclusion of as many as three races run over synthetic tracks....one at GG and as many as two at SA? Last year it was just the GG race unless it was on turf.

To make this wager "the best it can be" what they need to do, as one poster mentioned, it get rid of the "not with my money" races, like 6 1/2 F down the hill where half the field are either firsters or have no turf experience. Ugh.

What each track should do is put up their largest field of non-maiden races. Use stakes only when the fields are full....say 9 or more horses. Also try giving Santa Anita just one race instead of two, let Gulfstream be the two race track, since they have more "full field" races to draw from. Having one less "synthetic" race in the mix might actually help the handle a bit.

Finally, when the $2 minimum was in play, any M5 payoff over $5,000 resulted in not only a "signer", but a huge chunk of your winnings being withheld until tax refund time the following year. With the $1 minimum, they now can't withhold that nasty 30% until the payoff on a ONE dollar wager reaches $5,000, essentially doubling the "under the radar" range for withholding purposes to $10,000 for a deuce! Ain't it cool?

Let's take this concept one step further. Guess what a Pick 4 at Gulfstream's 50 cent minimum has to pay on a TWO DOLLAR wager (which of course no one of sound mind would ever purchase) in order for tax to be withheld from your winnings?? You are correct if you said $20,000! So if you hit for $4,988 on a 50 cent ticket, they must give you ALL your winnings. This is why the Gulfstream 50 cent Pick 4 is my favorite bet.

Now, is there anyone who wants the $2 minimum back for the Magna 5?

Vinman

Vin: You have skillfully covered several of what should be OBVIOUS reasons to everyone why the smaller minimum bet is a a good thing for the bettor. I LOVE how some on this board continue to argue that larger minimums are good for the bettor, yet the only decrease they can show in handle when the minimum wager has been lowered is on the Magna Pick 5 which was not even available in a lot af areas, much less taking the current economic conditions into account. You "larger minimum bet" guys can have your $2 minimum pick 6 for massive carryovers, and your $1 pentafecta which I could care less about. But the other exotics? fuhgettaboutit:D

Boomer

[InsideThePylons-MW]

I LOVE how some on this board continue to argue that larger minimums are good for the bettor, yet the only decrease they can show in handle when the minimum wager has been lowered is on the Magna Pick 5 which was not even available in a lot af areas, much less taking the current economic conditions into account.

Please show us your facts that dime minimums have increased super pools, and if they have, without decreasing the trifecta pools.

[The Bit]

When I was doing research for college about the affect of newly built casino's have on a city, town, neighborhood etc. I came across a study that dealt with the lowering the denominations of slot machines.

Apparently when slots were first introduced, the 25 cent and 50 cent machines were most popular. When the penny, nickle etc. slots started being installed, some people in the industry thought that they would lose profit, or handle, because a majority of the players would play the lesser machines.

What they found was interesting. The new machines didn't make as much money per hour, but in the long run, the new denominations increased the slot handle. They attributed it to the fact that the customer base at that time played for longer periods of time and ultimately spent more money per customer. They also theorized that it introduced a whole new group of customers, who enjoyed only spending a penny, nickle, or dime. At the time, they needed to do more data collection because the population in the surrounding area had expanded, casino had expanded etc.

It was interesting and every time this conversation comes up on here, I wonder how they to relate? It seems to me, the affect may be the same.

[1st time lasix]

I personally no longer play any supers where they have reduced the minimum to .10. I just do not like the possibility that somebody merely wheels and catches the same longshot in the top two slots that I dilligently found through my handicapping methods. In my humble opinion.....not likely to happen at the higher amount. Several years ago i used to catch an occasional open "ALL" in the 4th slot....never happens now. I just play the priced horse who i feel is being underappreciated as an overlay in other pools. Don't like .50 tris much either. I play the exotics exclusively except for occasional win bet when a keyed horse is 3-1 or higher. My handle has just changed. Here is another thing.....at my little simulcast venue....they don't allow us to play in any increment under $1 dollar so there is an uneven playing field to a very small degree. PS: I think i have played a carryover pick four in Monmouth and at Hawthorne in the recent past.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

It was interesting and every time this conversation comes up on here, I wonder how they to relate? It seems to me, the affect may be the same.

Your example has no similarity at all with pari-mutuel wagering.

Let's say I look at the Magna 5 races and all the horses I like add up to 3200 combos (200, 100, 48 etc. all the same), I'm going to play that for the minumum bet whether it be $1 or $2. If the minimum is $1, I'm not going to play it for $2, nor is anybody else. So my handle gets cut in half by the minimum being cut in half.

The cheapening of the bet for the regular players who now bet less trumps the bettors who are waiting for the minimum to be reduced before playing.

That is the main problem with the minimum bet reduction in the Magna 5. There are many more smaller ones also.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

I personally no longer play any supers where they have reduced the minimum to .10. I just do not like the possibility that somebody merely wheels and catches the same longshot in the top two slots that I dilligently found through my handicapping methods. In my humble opinion.....not likely to happen at the higher amount. Several years ago i used to catch an occasional open "ALL" in the 4th slot....never happens now.

Finally!

Someone who understands..........Lowering the minimums dumb down the smart and smarten up the dumb.

[ryesteve]

If the minimum is $1, I'm not going to play it for $2, nor is anybody else.But the point is that if the minimum is $2, there are a lot of players who aren't going to play it at all.

Lowering the minimums dumb down the smart and smarten up the dumb.I don't agree with this either. Lowering the minimums allows the dumb to be even dumber, by spreading so thin, they're wasting a lot of money on negative expectation bets.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

But the point is that if the minimum is $2, there are a lot of players who aren't going to play it at all.

Increasing the number of bettors by lowering the minimum does not increase handle as I stated above.

I don't agree with this either. Lowering the minimums allows the dumb to be even dumber, by spreading so thin, they're wasting a lot of money on negative expectation bets.

The dumb are dumber when the minimum is high and they include chalk on every bet or never use a 20-1 shot on top. When the minimum is lowered, they play the same dumb bets for less, and the more profitable ones replace it, which they would never play with a higher minimum.

[ryesteve]

Increasing the number of bettors by lowering the minimum does not increase handle as I stated above.Yeah, I saw you state it, but that doesn't make it true

When the minimum is lowered, they play the same dumb bets for less, and the more profitable ones replace itYour assessment of the profitability of a 6 horse superfecta box must be very different than mine.

[HUSKER55]

If JQ Public bets $0.10 and get back $1 and you bet $2 and get back $20 how does it make a difference? The guys that bet $2 are going to bet that much no matter what. So the pools are made available to the small fry which increases handle.

Suppose the pools were seperate. The $2 better competes with the $2 better and the small frys compete among themselves. The handle will still be up.

I buy one ticket and you buy 20 tickets. I don't see how it is different. If your handicapping is good you will win 20 times what I make. If you miss and I hit hit I still cash only 1 ticket.

Somebody is going to have to dumb this down for me cause I seem to have missed something.

Thanks

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Yeah, I saw you state it, but that doesn't make it true

Your assessment of the profitability of a 6 horse superfecta box must be very different than mine.

6 7 or even 8 horse super boxes bet properly into a pool with a $1 minimum is one of the most profitable bets I've ever encountered.

[ryesteve]

8 horse super boxes bet properly
Like I said, your assessment is different than mine... I'm sure it'll never happen, but I'd love to see someone take a stab at trying to post 8 horse boxes that show a profit over the long haul.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Like I said, your assessment is different than mine... I'm sure it'll never happen, but I'd love to see someone take a stab at trying to post 8 horse boxes that show a profit over the long haul.

Since the dime minimum, these bets have lost their profitability.

[ryesteve]

Since the dime minimum, these bets have lost their profitability.Then you're just agreeing with the point that I was originally making... that the dime minumum allows dumb bettors to put in giant tickets and throw their money away on negative expectation bets.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Then you're just agreeing with the point that I was originally making... that the dime minumum allows dumb bettors to put in giant tickets and throw their money away on negative expectation bets.

Huh?

Obviously you have no idea what I am talking about.

[chickenhead]

Logically it seems like a given that reducing the minimum on a bet with a very low per wager win rate will make a pool more efficient. Most pick 6 bettors (at $2 minimum) will have a lifetime ROI of roughly -100% even if the takeout were 0%. That would not be true at $0.01 minimum.

[ryesteve]

Obviously you have no idea what I am talking about.I know exactly what you're talking about... you're the one who seems to be having trouble navigating the logic here.

I said "Lowering the minimums allows the dumb to be even dumber, by spreading so thin, they're wasting a lot of money on negative expectation bets". After running in a circle, you finally came up with "Since the dime minimum, these bets have lost their profitability", where "these bets" was referring to large multi-horse box tickets... in other words, you said someone betting a large multi-horse dime boxes is spreading their money so thin, they're wasting a lot of money on negative expectation bets. :rolleyes:

[InsideThePylons-MW]

I know exactly what you're talking about... you're the one who seems to be having trouble navigating the logic here.

I said "Lowering the minimums allows the dumb to be even dumber, by spreading so thin, they're wasting a lot of money on negative expectation bets". After running in a circle, you finally came up with "Since the dime minimum, these bets have lost their profitability", where "these bets" was referring to large multi-horse box tickets... in other words, you said someone betting a large multi-horse dime boxes is spreading their money so thin, they're wasting a lot of money on negative expectation bets. :rolleyes:

I'm obviously overmatched.

Please read chickenhead's post above yours. Maybe you'll understand it when he explains it.

Also read 1st time lasix's post #36. He understands too.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Logically it seems like a given that reducing the minimum on a bet with a very low per wager win rate will make a pool more efficient. Most pick 6 bettors (at $2 minimum) will have a lifetime ROI of roughly -100% even if the takeout were 0%. That would not be true at $0.01 minimum.

It's absolutely unfathomable how people can't understand this concept.

Would Tiger Woods be as dominant playing in 7 hole tournaments instead of 72 hole tournaments? Of course not. Lowering the amount of holes or lowering the minimum wager brings less talented people into the equation more often.

Would you rather have the buffoon spending his $24 on an ABCD 4 horse $1 box ( a worthless bet for all his money), or have him now play 240 dime combos where he actually now has some profitable combos that he would never have for $1?

[Thomas Roulston]

Do you know of anyone whose strategy in the 10-cent superfecta - or better still, the Super High Five - is to wheel a relatively long-priced hard-core closer in all four/five positions, in the hope that said horse can pass enough tiring horses to get into the number?

It wouldn't work with a favorite or near-favorite, since then you could still suffer a net loss even if the horse did finish in the first 4 or 5.

In a race like the Breeders' Cup Dirt Marathon, doing something like this might make sense.

And just think of how popular such an angle might be if any track were to do as I suggested on here a while back and implement a "Six Pack" wager requiring the winner to pick the first six finishers of the same race, in precise order.

[ryesteve]

I'm obviously overmatched.Finally something from you I agree with.

You can't even keep straight what you're arguing about. This thread was supposedly about how minimums affect handle, but you keep trying to turn it into a bitchfest about how minimums are costing you money. That's a different argument for a different thread. If you're trying to argue that since you can't make money at them anymore, you're not betting them, so the pools must be smaller, you might want to expand your view past your own wallet.

[boomman]

steve: As I've stated before, I have had itp on iggy for a very long time (again the only one on this board that I have on iggy), so the only things I see from him are what you re-posted in your thread, but you have done an excellent job of explaining it. He doesn't get it, he will never get it, so do yourself a favor and "leave him be" LOL:lol:

Boomer

[InsideThePylons-MW]

steve: As I've stated before, I have had itp on iggy for a very long time (again the only one on this board that I have on iggy), so the only things I see from him are what you re-posted in your thread, but you have done an excellent job of explaining it. He doesn't get it, he will never get it, so do yourself a favor and "leave him be" LOL:lol:

Boomer

Iggy,

You argued that the Hi-5 at Santa Anita would fail miserably with a $1 minimum and it's only chance to survive was with a dime minimum.

The Hi-5 is thriving with it's $1 minimum and you were 100% wrong.

That's why you put me on iggy?

[Indulto]

... Would you rather have the buffoon spending his $24 on an ABCD 4 horse $1 box ( a worthless bet for all his money), or have him now play 240 dime combos where he actually now has some profitable combos that he would never have for $1?ITP-MW,
Are you the same ITP that sparred with Fred Pope and Ray Paulick in the horseman-horseplayer debates on the Paulick Report including the following?ITP Says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:41 pm (http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/will-horseplayers-and-horsemen-find-common-ground/#comment-6653)

Mr. Pope,

You need to get the most basic of facts straight before you can have the answer to save racing.

You keep stating as fact that the tracks charge 3% for their signals to all bet takers. That is 100% false. The major circuits (So Cal, NYRA, Kee etc.) charge all rebate shops and some other bet takers an appx avg of 8% for their product. If you don’t believe it, ask someone who knows.

When you are that far off on the main fact to your entire premise, it is either utter incompetence or blatant propaganda. Either way, it makes your entire argument suspect.

There is not one rebate player who wouldn’t trade his rebate for 10% across the board takeout for everybody (including your so called “suckers”).

[Thomas Roulston]

How's this for a way to settle the argument:

The major tracks on one coast implement a "Six Pack" (not to be confused with the Pick Six, in that the Six Pack calls for the correct selection of the first six finishers, in the same race) wager with a $1 minimum, while their counterparts on the other coast observe a 1-cent minimum.

Then compare handles.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

ITP-MW,
Are you the same ITP that sparred with Fred Pope and Ray Paulick in the horseman-horseplayer debates on the Paulick Report including the following?

Yes.

Are you serious about your post or just trying to be a dolt?

I am calling anybody who boxes all chalk as a superfecta strategy a buffoon and you are comparing it to me quoting Fred Pope saying "How long will it take the “suckers” paying retail to realize the guy on the phone next to them is getting a rebate and they too can switch to phone bets and stop funding the game?"

What exactly is your point?

[keilan]

Which guys here would wager $1 or $2 superfecta when other players could purchase 0.10 tickets from the same pool?

[Indulto]

Yes.

Are you serious about your post or just trying to be a dolt?

I am calling anybody who boxes all chalk as a superfecta strategy a buffoon and you are comparing it to me quoting Fred Pope saying "How long will it take the “suckers” paying retail to realize the guy on the phone next to them is getting a rebate and they too can switch to phone bets and stop funding the game?"

What exactly is your point?ITP,
Thank you for responding. No offense was intended, but since I can appear "doltish" without any exertion whatsoever, your interpretation may be worth exploring.

Regarding the Paulick Report debates, I thought you made excellent points, and if you are serious about preferring lower direct takeout for all to selective rebates based on volume, then you are indeed one of the rare professional players whose objectives are aligned with those of the vast majority of non-professional bettors.

While I agree that boxing the four top choices in a super is a losing proposition overall, I not infrequently encounter situations where I think four horses are competitive with each other and all are better than any other entrant. Boxing a dime super has proven effective for me in such circumstances -- the last time being the BC Juvenile won by Midshipman which paid $70+ for a $2.40 investment on the lowest odds horses. Such clear superiority is rare, so most of my supers use ALL in the 4th slot with up to 5 horses in the top 3. Occasionally I find a competitive race with one or more horses I feel are worth keying in attempt to score.

I wouldn't participate in the super pools at all if the minimum remained $1 just as I don't play the Pick Six with a $2 minimum. I’ve played the Magna 5 a few times unsuccessfully with limited combinations for $2, but had some brief success with the $.50 Pick 5 at Monmouth when I had access. I may play the Magna 5 for $1 if they use better races. If professionals/whales want to keep feeding on "suckers" and "buffoons" like me, they're going to have to get us into the pools by lowering minimums, especially during the hard economic times ahead.

So my point is that your post in this thread that I quoted from appears to be inconsistent in both tone and philosophy with your comment from the Paulick Report. I noticed from some other comments of yours in the debate that you are a horse owner as well as a professional player. I suspect a case could be made that there exists a coalition of some sort between horsemen and rebated professional players to maintain the status quo that tilts the playing field against the vast majority of those betting for entertainment.

Until sufficient numbers of "minnows" understand the extent of the disadvantage at which they have been placed, and are willing to unite and boycott under leadership committed to their interests, I don't foresee any changes on their behalf or any reversal of racing's fortunes.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Indolto, just joking ;)

My thoughts on these matters have been consistent for years.

Racing needs to lower takeout to grow handle from everyone, both pros and fans. 10% is what needs to be done. Obviously most big bettors with a rebate are paying close to that so everybody will be on equal footing. I can't imagine any professional bettor not wanting pools to grow while giving everybody else a better chance to win.

Minimum wager amounts do not need to be lowered. Smaller bettors need to realize that lower minimums take the big bettors out of certain wagers for numerous reasons, especially in non major track pools. There needs to be a happy medium and a dime nor $5 is not. I think a $1 minimum for all wagers except multi-race carryover driven pools should be acceptable to both big and small players.

I understand both the needs of the small bettor and the big bettor. It's tough for a small bettor to understand the needs of big bettors or what triggers them to want to bet. All my opinions try to be as fair as possible to both.

[ezrabrooks]

Which guys here would wager $1 or $2 superfecta when other players could purchase 0.10 tickets from the same pool?

Do you mean as opposed to punching 10 ten centers for a $1 play, or just not playing into pools with .10 minimums?

Ez

[samyn on the green]

For the 14FEB the handle was $415.3K. Still well below the 2008 average when the min was $2.

If the players do not bet why would tracks lower mins?

[Indulto]

Indolto, just joking ;)

My thoughts on these matters have been consistent for years.

Racing needs to lower takeout to grow handle from everyone, both pros and fans. 10% is what needs to be done. Obviously most big bettors with a rebate are paying close to that so everybody will be on equal footing. I can't imagine any professional bettor not wanting pools to grow while giving everybody else a better chance to win.

Minimum wager amounts do not need to be lowered. Smaller bettors need to realize that lower minimums take the big bettors out of certain wagers for numerous reasons, especially in non major track pools. There needs to be a happy medium and a dime nor $5 is not. I think a $1 minimum for all wagers except multi-race carryover driven pools should be acceptable to both big and small players.

I understand both the needs of the small bettor and the big bettor. It's tough for a small bettor to understand the needs of big bettors or what triggers them to want to bet. All my opinions try to be as fair as possible to both.
:D
ITP,
Pardon my indolence, but isn’t it a little condescending to say it’s tough for the small bettor to understand the needs and motivation of big bettors? I doubt it’s possible to be fair to both. Seems to me the professional exploitation of small bettors with the assistance of both horsemen and bet takers isn’t all that different from the unbridled capitalism responsible for our financial system’s collapse. Big bettors didn’t need rebates to wind up in the black prior to simulcasting, and IMO prohibitive exotic wager minimums should all go the way of the $5 exacta minimum when players were willing to protest it.

Your decision to make a livelihood from betting on horses doesn’t exempt you -- and those who facilitate and profit from your pursuing your under-reported advantage -- from the ethical considerations of preying on the uninformed and unreachable. NY OTBs apparently saved us from the clutches of illegal bookmakers only to deliver us into the hands of rebated professionals who dominate the now coveted pick six pools with their bankrolls. If racing is to recover through the promotion of its gambling aspect, it will have to sacrifice the market manipulation aspect and give all a sporting chance. Can a single horseplayer advocacy group represent both the perceived champs and chumps? We will see.

I don't advocate eliminating the $2 P6 minimum altogether, but rather occasionally reducing it on high-attendance days. By lowering it to $.50 on weekends and holidays only when there is no existing carryover in play -- not unlike NYRA's policy to lower P6 takeout on days when there is no carryover -- racing as a sport and entertainment business might be rekindled. At the very least that option should be available to on-track attendees.

[HUSKER55]

Does anybody know what the ratio is between whales and people who bet less than $20 per race is?


Thanks

[Zman179]

Minimum wager amounts do not need to be lowered. Smaller bettors need to realize that lower minimums take the big bettors out of certain wagers for numerous reasons, especially in non major track pools. There needs to be a happy medium and a dime nor $5 is not. I think a $1 minimum for all wagers except multi-race carryover driven pools should be acceptable to both big and small players.

$1 is a little too high for small players (i.e. $24 for a four-horse box) and 10¢ is too small for big players as it allows idiot bets which normally wouldn't be played to enter the pool.
I think that 50¢ would be a good compromise. This way a small player can still afford spreading a little bit in the super ($12 for a four horse box or five horse key [1/xxxx/xxxx/xxxx]) and the big player can still have a chance at nailing a big ticket with bombs, or even an all, without having wayward dimes cut his payoff down with stabs in the dark.

[DanG]

Original article courtesy of DRF.com posted 4/11/2008: (I assume this link will work if you have the free membership to DRF) http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NID=93637&subs=0&arc=1

Blurb from Steve Crist:

Two simple changes need to made. First, the withholding threshold needs to be raised from the current absurdly low $5,000 to a true windfall level of $25,000 or more. Second, players should be able to apply losses against winnings before their gross proceeds are erroneously declared as taxable income.

In addition to galvanizing support for these changes, which would improve track handle more than all current advertising and promotions combined, tracks should continue to reduce minimum bets, one of the few ways of exempting exotic payoffs from tax liability: a $6,000 for $2 superfecta is subjected to $1,500 in withholding, and a $3,000 for $1 payoff is reported to the I.R.S. and creates a tax liability for the player, but a $300 for $0.10 payoff dodges the taxman altogether .

[keilan]

Do you mean as opposed to punching 10 ten centers for a $1 play, or just not playing into pools with .10 minimums?

Ez



Here’s an analogy for you.

Seven guys sit down to play poker and the ante is $700.00 for one guy and $70.00 for the other six. Assume that all players are of the same ability but the one who antes $700.00 is just a larger player.

Think about this for a moment – does anyone here want to be the “larger player”.

[boomman]

Blurb from Steve Crist:
Quote:
Two simple changes need to made. First, the withholding threshold needs to be raised from the current absurdly low $5,000 to a true windfall level of $25,000 or more. Second, players should be able to apply losses against winnings before their gross proceeds are erroneously declared as taxable income.

In addition to galvanizing support for these changes, which would improve track handle more than all current advertising and promotions combined, tracks should continue to reduce minimum bets, one of the few ways of exempting exotic payoffs from tax liability: a $6,000 for $2 superfecta is subjected to $1,500 in withholding, and a $3,000 for $1 payoff is reported to the I.R.S. and creates a tax liability for the player, but a $300 for $0.10 payoff dodges the taxman altogether



DanG: Now I guess since you've posted that Steve Crist (who is unquestionably one of the largest players in the business) 100% agrees with my position, the naysayers will also contend that he "doesn't know what he's talking about":lol:

Boomer

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Pardon my indolence, but isn’t it a little condescending to say it’s tough for the small bettor to understand the needs and motivation of big bettors?

Not at all. Why would it be condescending? How many small bettors can possibly understand what motivates a big bettor to wager unless they've done it themselves? Does everybody who buys a stock knows what motivates Warren Buffet?

I doubt it’s possible to be fair to both.

Obviously not.

Seems to me the professional exploitation of small bettors with the assistance of both horsemen and bet takers isn’t all that different from the unbridled capitalism responsible for our financial system’s collapse.

Hilarious stuff!

Horseman wagering IQ is single digit and bet taker IQ is low double digit and you have them plotting some outrageous plan to ??????? I have no idea.

Big bettors didn’t need rebates to wind up in the black prior to simulcasting, and IMO prohibitive exotic wager minimums should all go the way of the $5 exacta minimum when players were willing to protest it.

[font=Verdana]Your decision to make a livelihood from betting on horses doesn’t exempt you -- and those who facilitate and profit from your pursuing your under-reported advantage -- from the ethical considerations of preying on the uninformed and unreachable.

20 years ago, I paid the TV dept. of the racetrack I frequented to make me a videotape copy of the races every day. I spent 40-60 hours a week watching them. Of course when I was winning and was the biggest bettor at that track, everybody complained I had an unfair advantage. Why? Because I had the tapes (which anybody else could have got if they were willing to pay the guy to do it for them) or because I spent 40-60 hours a week watching them and had an advantage. These same tapes I got were played in a continuous loop all day long before the races at night. I didn't see anybody (the loser complainers) going out of their way to watch them.

Losers will always scream about something being unfair because that's how they justify their losing.

I guess I was unethical while preying on the uninformed and unreachable then too.

Can a single horseplayer advocacy group represent both the perceived champs and chumps? We will see.

Probably not. The chumps seem to always try to fracture everything good just because that's the nature of most chumps.

I'm saying I want 10% takeout across the board and chumps are still screaming about unethical rebate nonsense instead of also trying to support 10% takeout.

[turfnsport]

Would Tiger Woods be as dominant playing in 7 hole tournaments instead of 72 hole tournaments? Of course not. Lowering the amount of holes or lowering the minimum wager brings less talented people into the equation more often.

Sharpest post of this thread. Worth reading again.

[Indulto]

Very enjoyable post, ITP.Not at all. Why would it be condescending? How many small bettors can possibly understand what motivates a big bettor to wager unless they've done it themselves? Does everybody who buys a stock knows what motivates Warren Buffet?Fair enough, but Buffet's trades are also subject to regulations protecting other market participants.Hilarious stuff!I’m glad you found it entertaining.20 years ago, I paid the TV dept. of the racetrack I frequented to make me a videotape copy of the races every day. I spent 40-60 hours a week watching them. Of course when I was winning and was the biggest bettor at that track, everybody complained I had an unfair advantage. Why? Because I had the tapes (which anybody else could have got if they were willing to pay the guy to do it for them) or because I spent 40-60 hours a week watching them and had an advantage. These same tapes I got were played in a continuous loop all day long before the races at night. I didn't see anybody (the loser complainers) going out of their way to watch them.If the tapes were available to everyone, and you were merely paying extra for convenience, I don’t see that as unfair. Using the computer for convenience and avoiding tedium falls into the same category, but allowing robotic wagering with direct access to the pools strikes me as unfair because it changes the dynamic of the game in favor of a minority at the expense of the majority which is also my objection to selective rebating with rates based on volume.Losers will always scream about something being unfair because that's how they justify their losing.I don’t think this is true. Horseplayers are indeed great complainers, but most small bettors I know acknowledge the game is a tough one and that most of those capable of being profitable without a rebate are generally more talented and/or motivated than their competition. They (and I) don’t accept the premise that exotic minimums should be higher just to provide the bigger bettors an advantage.I guess I was unethical while preying on the uninformed and unreachable then too.One can only determine what is ethical for oneself at any point in time. When one considers ethics important, one tends to be more ethical.Probably not. The chumps seem to always try to fracture everything good just because that's the nature of most chumps.You mean like power tends to corrupt and greed is seldom quenched? ;) I'm saying I want 10% takeout across the board and chumps are still screaming about unethical rebate nonsense instead of also trying to support 10% takeout. That sounded more like a chimp than a champ to me. Several articles and comments from HANA members have concluded that direct takeout reductions are virtually impossible to implement simultaneously across all venues. I suspect no other industry stakeholders would accept a reduction to 10% which is far lower than that for either Hong Kong or Australia. Would you be still be willing accept a uniform takeout reduction to, say, 16% in lieu of rebates?

HANA members also cite churn as another reason they prefer rebating over direct takeout reduction in order to grow handle. I believe that maintaining a level playing field will eventually increase handle, but purses could be distributed more efficiently until they do to ensure fields are larger and more competitive at each level.

[ryesteve]

Here’s an analogy for you.

Seven guys sit down to play poker and the ante is $700.00 for one guy and $70.00 for the other six. Assume that all players are of the same ability but the one who antes $700.00 is just a larger player.

Think about this for a moment – does anyone here want to be the “larger player”.Unless you're exclusively thinking of situations where one ticket takes the whole pool (and exactly how often does that happen?) this analogy doesn't apply.

[HUSKER55]

If the ante is $70 then why are you paying $700?

[InsideThePylons-MW]

[font=Verdana] Several articles and comments from HANA members have concluded that direct takeout reductions are virtually impossible to implement simultaneously across all venues. I suspect no other industry stakeholders would accept a reduction to 10% which is far lower than that for either Hong Kong or Australia.

Well I guess if what I'm hoping will happen someday is futile because HANA and other jurisdictions say so, then I'll just stop telling important people in the industry that takeout needs to be reduced to 10%. We can both watch racing die a slow death.

Would you be still be willing accept a uniform takeout reduction to, say, 16% in lieu of rebates?

If the takeout was 16%, there would still be rebates.


HANA members also cite churn as another reason they prefer rebating over direct takeout reduction in order to grow handle.

If a bettor's after rebate takeout is appx. 10% compared to them lowering takeout to 10%, the rebate bettor's churn should increase (I know mine would) due to bigger pool sizes. So if takeout is lowered to a near post-rebate level, churn would increase.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Sharpest post of this thread. Worth reading again.

Thanks TnS

It's amazing that only you, keilan, 1st time lasix, and chickenhead seem to understand this.

[Indulto]

If a bettor's after rebate takeout is appx. 10% compared to them lowering takeout to 10%, the rebate bettor's churn should increase (I know mine would) due to bigger pool sizes. So if takeout is lowered to a near post-rebate level, churn would increase.Thanks for clarifying. Did you mean PRE-rebate here?If the takeout was 16%, there would still be rebatesEven if tracks operated all licensed ADWs?
Well I guess if what I'm hoping will happen someday is futile because HANA and other jurisdictions say so, then I'll just stop telling important people in the industry that takeout needs to be reduced to 10%. We can both watch racing die a slow death.Hoping it will happen isn't the same thing as attracting the support and developing the contacts to actually make it happen. If your potential to influence industry stakeholders matches your confidence in your opinions, why not organize a single-issue movement to achieve that objective like the NTRA did to eliminate withholding. If, as you said, professionals really want this -- and certainly non-professionals do also -- what would be the downside?

[Imriledup]

:D
ITP,
Pardon my indolence, but isn’t it a little condescending to say it’s tough for the small bettor to understand the needs and motivation of big bettors? I doubt it’s possible to be fair to both. Seems to me the professional exploitation of small bettors with the assistance of both horsemen and bet takers isn’t all that different from the unbridled capitalism responsible for our financial system’s collapse. Big bettors didn’t need rebates to wind up in the black prior to simulcasting, and IMO prohibitive exotic wager minimums should all go the way of the $5 exacta minimum when players were willing to protest it.

Your decision to make a livelihood from betting on horses doesn’t exempt you -- and those who facilitate and profit from your pursuing your under-reported advantage -- from the ethical considerations of preying on the uninformed and unreachable. NY OTBs apparently saved us from the clutches of illegal bookmakers only to deliver us into the hands of rebated professionals who dominate the now coveted pick six pools with their bankrolls. If racing is to recover through the promotion of its gambling aspect, it will have to sacrifice the market manipulation aspect and give all a sporting chance. Can a single horseplayer advocacy group represent both the perceived champs and chumps? We will see.

I don't advocate eliminating the $2 P6 minimum altogether, but rather occasionally reducing it on high-attendance days. By lowering it to $.50 on weekends and holidays only when there is no existing carryover in play -- not unlike NYRA's policy to lower P6 takeout on days when there is no carryover -- racing as a sport and entertainment business might be rekindled. At the very least that option should be available to on-track attendees.

The pick 6 is a 2 dollar bet so it can provide an extremely large payoff. If you lower the minimum to 50 cents, it defeats the purpose of the bet. A 50 cent pick 6 is 1/4th as difficult to hit. Why would you want to make a difficult bet into a much easier bet? Why not just invest your money into a pick 3 or pick 4?

[Indulto]

The pick 6 is a 2 dollar bet so it can provide an extremely large payoff. If you lower the minimum to 50 cents, it defeats the purpose of the bet. A 50 cent pick 6 is 1/4th as difficult to hit. Why would you want to make a difficult bet into a much easier bet? Why not just invest your money into a pick 3 or pick 4?IRU,
How many times have you cashed a $2 Pick Six combination ticket with 6 out of 6?

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Thanks for clarifying. Did you mean PRE-rebate here?

No

Even if tracks operated all licensed ADWs?

Tracks and ADW's have been giving out rebates for many years. Why would track operated ADW's not give rebates? Xpressbet does now.

Hoping it will happen isn't the same thing as attracting the support and developing the contacts to actually make it happen. If your potential to influence industry stakeholders matches your confidence in your opinions, why not organize a single-issue movement to achieve that objective like the NTRA did to eliminate withholding. If, as you said, professionals really want this -- and certainly non-professionals do also -- what would be the downside?

I'm ITP, not Moses.

[Indulto]

NoI was confused by your use of “after rebate” in one case, and “post-rebate” in the other. Do you happen to know what the lowest direct takeout rates were when rebating began? Also, if rebates are paid on losing wagers as well winning ones, how can a direct takeout of 10% be as good for the bettor whose “after rebate” takeout was 10%?Tracks and ADW's have been giving out rebates for many years. Why would track operated ADW's not give rebates? Xpressbet does now.The discussion was about lowering direct takeout in lieu of rebates. Why would tracks lower direct takeout at all if they were still going to provide rebates?I'm ITP, not Moses.Indeed, your disdain for small bettors more closely resembles that of the biblical Pharaoh for the Hebrew slaves. ;)

Would other than a false prophet pay lip service to so unrealistic a promised land as 10% direct takeout while lining his pockets with rebated gold? :D

[InsideThePylons-MW]

I was confused by your use of “after rebate” in one case, and “post-rebate” in the other. Do you happen to know what the lowest direct takeout rates were when rebating began? Also, if rebates are paid on losing wagers as well winning ones, how can a direct takeout of 10% be as good for the bettor whose “after rebate” takeout was 10%?

How is it possible that somebody can have such an overwhelming tunnel vision opinion on a subject when he is so easily confused and obviously knows absolutely nothing whatsoever about the subject he is talking about?

If takeout is 22% and the rebate is appx 12%, then the after rebate takeout is appx 10%. Not that tough to understand.

The discussion was about lowering direct takeout in lieu of rebates. Why would tracks lower direct takeout at all if they were still going to provide rebates?

Are you serious? Obviously your business acumen is lacking. If you were in business and you were offered a proposition of getting 8% of 10 million or 16% of nothing, which would you choose? Maybe you would choose the 16%.

As I've stated before which obviously you seem to ignore, actual racetracks are some of the biggest and best rebaters currently.


Indeed, your disdain for small bettors more closely resembles that of the biblical Pharaoh for the Hebrew slaves. ;)

I have no disdain for the small bettor. Once again, you seem to be confused as usual. Fred Pope called the small bettors "suckers". Somehow in your confused state, you still seem to think I said that even though I posted his exact quote above that I was quoting.

Your disdain for the big bettor seems to be a million times worse than any disdain I have for anything. Typical hypocrite.

I only know Moses parted the Red Sea. Other than that I have no idea what he did.

Would other than a false prophet pay lip service to so unrealistic a promised land as 10% direct takeout while lining his pockets with rebated gold? :D

More hilarious stuff. You should seek help.

[Indulto]

ITP,
Your certitude is admirable, but not your unwillingness to explain yourself.… If takeout is 22% and the rebate is appx 12%, then the after rebate takeout is appx 10%. Not that tough to understand.No. it isn’t. Nor is the concept that lower direct takeout will result in increased payoffs. What is hard (at least for me with admittedly no experience in being rebated) to understand is that if one currently receives 12% back on ALL one’s wagers of which most (other than perhaps those to place or show) are losing ones, then how would the return received when one does win actually match, much less exceed, the income that previously included that 12% rebate?

That was an honest question. Do you have an honest answer?… If you were in business and you were offered a proposition of getting 8% of 10 million or 16% of nothing, which would you choose? Maybe you would choose the 16%.

As I've stated before which obviously you seem to ignore, actual racetracks are some of the biggest and best rebaters currently.May I assume that 100 million represents the annual handle generated by rebated players and roughly 10% of the nationwide total? Is that, in fact, the only choice tracks are faced with? If they believe they can’t increase handle by attracting greater participation, one might understand their unwillingness to call the rebated player’s bluff that they’ll walk away entirely, but to me the potential to expand the 90% of handle yielding the additional 6% would be worthy of their consideration.

Your confirming that tracks are untransparently providing the biggest and best rebates to professionals appears to support my contention that bet takers are working with professionals players to the detriment of non-professional players. Maybe we’d do better in a shell game at the carnival. ;) I have no disdain for the small bettor. Once again, you seem to be confused as usual. Fred Pope called the small bettors "suckers". Somehow in your confused state, you still seem to think I said that even though I posted his exact quote above that I was quoting.

Your disdain for the big bettor seems to be a million times worse than any disdain I have for anything. Typical hypocrite.Nice try, but the following quotes from some of your posts in this thread before I got involved don’t support your claims of respect for those you exploit:… The cheapening of the bet for the regular players who now bet less trumps the bettors who are waiting for the minimum to be reduced before playing.… The dumb are dumber when the minimum is high and they include chalk on every bet or never use a 20-1 shot on top. When the minimum is lowered, they play the same dumb bets for less, and the more profitable ones replace it, which they would never play with a higher minimum.Finally!

Someone who understands..........Lowering the minimums dumb down the smart and smarten up the dumb.Back to your last post:I only know Moses parted the Red Sea. Other than that I have no idea what he did.Apparently you knew enough to drop his name here while avoiding a non-sequitur. You made me laugh because somebody obviously accomplished the equivalent of parting the Red Sea for rebated players. :D More hilarious stuff. You should seek help.Damn straight! I need all the help I can get to make more non-professional players aware of the one-sidedness associated with the policies of rebating and maintaining high exotic wager minimums under all circumstances.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

After careful consideration, I've changed my mind.

I'm now supporting 45% takeout, all bets must be made on-track, no simulcasting whatsoever, and no rebates to anybody.

I'm also for every bet being a penny minimum. I hope that one day fractional penny betting sweeps the nation. I can't wait to play a p-6 with 250,000 units for .001 cents.

I've seen the light and I'm quitting betting horses until these changes are implemented.

[Indulto]

After careful consideration, I've changed my mind.

I'm now supporting 45% takeout, all bets must be made on-track, no simulcasting whatsoever, and no rebates to anybody.

I'm also for every bet being a penny minimum. I hope that one day fractional penny betting sweeps the nation. I can't wait to play a p-6 with 250,000 units for .001 cents.

I've seen the light and I'm quitting betting horses until these changes are implemented.I can only assume the above nonsense is your way of saying that you can't answer my questions.

[SMOO]

On a related note, I'd love me some Joanne Jones. :kiss:

[InsideThePylons-MW]

I can only assume the above nonsense is your way of saying that you can't answer my questions.

Right now, since I'm not betting any more......I'm working on my new theories.

Does the voracity and timeliness of the swallows returning to Capistrano have anything to do with the breakdown rate at Del Mar?

Does the on time percentage of flights in and out of JFK each day have anything to do with on track wagering handle at AQU.

If you have any thoughts about either of those, I would appreciate your input.

Thanks

[HUSKER55]

If the minimum bet into the pool is a dime and your handicapping allows you to zero in on the winner and buy 10 tickets to my one, how are you being hurt?

The only way for handle to increase is if takeout decreases to attract more players to bet more money. In other words that would attract the "occasional " better into that pool more often because the payouts would increase.

[Indulto]

Right now, since I'm not betting any more......I'm working on my new theories.

Does the voracity and timeliness of the swallows returning to Capistrano have anything to do with the breakdown rate at Del Mar?

Does the on time percentage of flights in and out of JFK each day have anything to do with on track wagering handle at AQU.

If you have any thoughts about either of those, I would appreciate your input.

Thanks:lol:
I doubt swallows have any effect on Del Mar, but I can imagine a scenario where a flight with a whale on his way to JFK from So Cal was delayed by a flock of swallows attacking its turbines; thereby depriving that notorious rebater, NYRA, the full benefit of the whale’s potential contribution to handle – assuming of course, the return of the swallows coincided with a meet at AQU or BEL. ;)

[Zman179]

:lol:
I doubt swallows have any effect on Del Mar, but I can imagine a scenario where a flight with a whale on his way to JFK from So Cal was delayed by a flock of swallows attacking its turbines; thereby depriving that notorious rebater, NYRA, the full benefit of the whale’s potential contribution to handle – assuming of course, the return of the swallows coincided with a meet at AQU or BEL. ;)

Go figure, a whale landing in the Hudson.



Does the voracity and timeliness of the swallows returning to Capistrano have anything to do with the breakdown rate at Del Mar?

Depends if they're African or European swallows. :D

[Indulto]

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2009/February/23/Four-years-in-ten-cent-superfecta-going-strong.aspx (http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2009/February/23/Four-years-in-ten-cent-superfecta-going-strong.aspx)
Four years in, ten-cent superfecta going strong
by Frank AngstFebruary 23, 2009… The New York Racing Association changed its superfecta minimum to ten cents in the fall of 2007 and has kept tabs on its performance.

At the first full meeting to offer the wager, Aqueduct winter-spring 2007-’08, the average superfecta pool was up 30.6%. At the 2008 Belmont spring meeting, the average superfecta pool was up 28.3%.

... In examining a two-week period of superfecta wagers during the closing week of the 2008 Saratoga Race Course meeting and opening week of the ’08 Belmont fall meeting, NYRA determined 72% of its superfecta tickets were at the ten-cent level, accounting for 36% of the pool. Superfecta wagers at the $1 level accounted for 28% of the tickets sold and 64% of total handle.

“This low-cost betting option opens up the challenge and potential rewards of the superfecta to many more players,” Hayward said. “Ten-cent players typically build multi-bet tickets, by boxing or using part-wheels, with many more permutations than do $1 players. It’s a very popular play with our fans.”

… While the bet allows smaller bankroll players a chance at some action, the bet also has fans among bigger bettors who can avoid immediate tax reporting or withholding by betting at the ten-cent minimum. These players may play a ten-cent ticket ten times rather than a single $1 ticket, keeping potential payouts below required reporting levels.

... “One of our concerns was that it would cannibalize other pools, but in the harsh reality from a management side, it’s our biggest takeout, a 25% takeout,” Johnston said. “So if we took something from a win, place, or show wager at 17%, it’s actually better for our purses and our racing product.”

… Still, the bet is very popular with players. The Horseplayers Association of North America gives positive marks to tracks that offer the ten-cent superfecta. ...

[boomman]

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2009/February/23/Four-years-in-ten-cent-superfecta-going-strong.aspx (http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2009/February/23/Four-years-in-ten-cent-superfecta-going-strong.aspx)
Four years in, ten-cent superfecta going strong
by Frank AngstFebruary 23, 2009

Thx for posting Indulto! Just another hole in ITP's theory. Don't worry he'll still tell you how wrong we were...........:lol: :lol:

Boomer

[cj]

10 cent supers at tracks with big pools are probably fine. At tracks with small pools, they make the bet unplayable for anyone willing to invest a sizable amount of money.

[Indulto]

Thx for posting Indulto! Just another hole in ITP's theory. Don't worry he'll still tell you how wrong we were...........:lol: :lol:

BoomerBmM,
I didn't take this exchange personally. Unlike in the Middle East, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend; or my enemy.

[boomman]

indulto: Was simply thanking you for posting that.... nothing more, nothing less And notice there was nothing mentioned about becoming "bosom buddies" because I agree with you in this case................;)

Boomer

[Indulto]

indulto: Was simply thanking you for posting that.... nothing more, nothing less And notice there was nothing mentioned about becoming "bosom buddies" because I agree with you in this case................;)

BoomerBmM,
Apparently two intervening posts were deleted. The first was ITP's which quoted my response to you as part of his attempt to discredit you. The second was my request to both of you to stop piggybacking my posts with your personal feud.

Perhaps I was too flippant in my original reply to you, but you put me in a position where not responding could be considered implicit agreement with your remark discrediting him.

I look forward to spiritingly exploring other differences of opinion on racing-related issues with either or both of you in the future.

[DeanT]

10 cent supers at tracks with big pools are probably fine. At tracks with small pools, they make the bet unplayable for anyone willing to invest a sizable amount of money.

Interesting discussion here.

10 cent mins are good for the biz overall in terms of marketing and rebetting from smaller players (higher churn because of higher hit rates and you can market 10 cent bets to slots people and new players), imo. As a larger player I abhor them. I wish everything (selfishly) was a $1 min.

[cj]

Exactly. The only reason to play superfectas is to go for a score. The only way to get a score at the smaller tracks is to take down the pool. While it does happen at the smaller tracks, it is very rare.

Before 10 cent minimums, it was not uncommon to put a few hundred into a superpool and hope to take the pool for 3 or 4 grand. Now, that just isn't going to happen often enough to make it worthwhile.

If tracks are seeing increased handle it is obviously the right move for them. Not only is the handle bigger, but the big scores aren't being removed from circulation nearly as often. I am not sure the handle is bigger though, and in the long run I doubt it will be. People play exotics for big scores, and those potential scores are dwindling with lower minimums at smaller tracks.

[DeanT]

We can have some tracks offering $1 mins, like occurs at places like Mountaineer. It can differentiate themselves. For too long racing has catered to one customer, but there are several types of customers.

I would like to see a four or five year study done on this to be sure, but anecdotally the small 10 centers seem to be good overall. I read a book recently and the product VP of General Mills was speaking about choice, and whenever you offer more choice you get more sales. This cuts across all businesses I believe. It was one of the reasons that the HANA list incorporated wager variety - more variety, more handle, and more satisfied customers. This has been documented in studies already (devoid of 10 cent wagers..... at least I have not seen one yet..... maybe Marshall Gramm will get to it soon).

However, I play very few supers now. I used to play them quite a bit and worked at them. In a ten horse field taking a 1-2-A-A, 1-A-2-A and a 1-A-A-2 for $168 served me well. I can not do that any longer with ten centers. But racing for too long has had people worried about their slice, thinking they are bigger than the game. The game is bigger than an individual and we have to start doing things that are good for the game overall and stop worrying about individual slices.

[cj]

One thing I have never understood is having 10 cent supers and regular trifectas on the same race. One thing management underestimates in these discussions is the power of pool size.

[Imriledup]

My favorite bet was betting 1 dollar supers in pools that are approx 20k. Those were situations where i could be the only winner. Now, with the dime version, a 20k pool is effectively a 200k pool (200k combinations) which means the little old lady from pasadena is going to 'clip' money out of my pocket that she wouldn't have clipped had this been a 1 dollar bet.

The dime super made the 'pool shot' a thing of the past.

[boomman]

BmM,
Apparently two intervening posts were deleted. The first was ITP's which quoted my response to you as part of his attempt to discredit you. The second was my request to both of you to stop piggybacking my posts with your personal feud.

Perhaps I was too flippant in my original reply to you, but you put me in a position where not responding could be considered implicit agreement with your remark discrediting him.

I look forward to spiritingly exploring other differences of opinion on racing-related issues with either or both of you in the future.

Indulto: I obviously did not see the two deleted posts, but let me make my position clear on several points in the "spirit of discussion". First of all, I didn't consider your response flippant, I just didn't get it because I didn't see your other post. But rest assured, I'm not asking you or anyone else to "fight my battles for me". My discusson with ITP ended after what I considered several unneccessary remarks on his part, and that's over and done with I will have no further dialogue with him and that's permanent. But what I was thanking you for was posting was a report that I hadn't previously seen that confirmed what I had been saying, in that a 4 year study of dime supers, it did in fact VERIFY that they do add to handle. As for the $1 minimums, Dean and several other players on this board have made it very clear that it is their preference and I totally get that. My overall preference is for whatever benefits our sport as a whole, and even though I do think lower minimums is in the longterm best interest of the game, I would have an open mind to changing it if it didn't prove to be true over a test of time........... ;)

Boomer