Sophisticated Computer betting may be 10% of national handle! Late Odds Changes???

[andymays]

http://www.drf.com/news/article/106765.html

Excerpt:

Sophisticated computer programs that often send huge, payoff-changing wagers only seconds before the close of betting are now accounting for approximately 10 percent of the national wagering handle, according to estimates provided by racing officials who monitor the activity of the programs.

An estimated $1.5 billion in computer-generated wagers - a number that is disputed by some racing officials - is being bet by six or seven teams of mathematicians and programmers that benefit from some of the most lucrative rebates in the industry. The teams bet through either Elite Turf Club or Racing and Gaming Services, both based in the Caribbean.

Although computer programs have been sending bets into U.S. parimutuel pools for at least eight years, the programs have only recently come to provide as much as 10 percent of the national betting handle, according to the officials. Since several large racing operations, including the New York Racing Association, prohibit the programs from betting into their pools, the computer teams almost certainly account for far more than 10 percent of the handle on some races at certain tracks.

As a result, the programs remain the driving force behind many late odds changes because of the amount of money they send into the pools just before the close of betting. In addition, the methods by which the programs work remain a source of controversy for some players who contend that the teams exploit unfair advantages in the parimutuel system - such as the lucrative rebates that push the programs into profitable territory and the ability to instantaneously place thousands of wagers.

[Jeff P]

FWIW I think 10 percent might be on the low side.

-jp

.

[andymays]

FWIW I think 10 percent might be on the low side.

-jp

.


I agree Jeff. What's gonna change this stuff?

[FenceBored]

Golly, I guess that means that the pool closing time couldn't be modified so the odds are constant once the gates open. Cause we all know you can't reprogram a computer. :rolleyes:

[Jeff P]

A few thoughts FWIW...

I've had some interesting conversations with people from some of these teams. Yes, they have resources... teams of people who know what they are doing, computer models, large bankrolls, etc. I think Dave S. said in another thread that some of them are like corporations. I agree. They're efficient and everyone involved has a job to do and they do it.

But understand they're really not taking advantage of anything a serious player can't take advantage of on his or her own... or a team of serious players who decide to form an alliance.

If you are willing to wager serious money, good rebates aren't that hard to find. If you are willing to invest in software and spend the time developing successful computer models, no one is stopping you. I'm pretty much convinced that the largest players in the world have access to the same slow outdated tote system data - current odds, exacta prices, and double prices that you and I do. I'm also convinced that they don't have access to pool info for specific trifecta, superfecta, pick3, and pick4 combinations for the current race. But they can and do estimate those based on other current info that's available. If you want to parse that info and develop computer models and an interface to submit hundreds of wagers last second to take advantage of pricing inefficiencies pointed out by your models, again, no one is stopping you.

They bet the amount of money that they bet because they can. I'm of the opinion that most if not all of the large teams show consistent long term profits. Yes, rebates absolutely help them achieve this. But in my opinion their rebates are purely a mechanism for reducing their effective takeout so that it's really close to what takeout's optimal pricing point would be in the first place.

Let's put that another way. If they didn't have rebates but takeout were reduced to the point that their effective takeout was the same - the amount of handle they pump out would be the same - or even more. It's really a lower effective takeout that enables them to bet as much (successfully) as they do.

It's also my opinion that reduced takeout would have the effect of generating a LOT of interest from new players - and would bring a LOT of new money into the pools.



-jp

.

[GameTheory]

Golly, I guess that means that the pool closing time couldn't be modified so the odds are constant once the gates open. Cause we all know you can't reprogram a computer. :rolleyes:But they would still drop just as much after YOU made your bet, so what's the difference? I mean, they did try it for a while... no one liked it.

[BillW]

But they would still drop just as much after YOU made your bet, so what's the difference? I mean, they did try it for a while... no one liked it.

That's correct GT. There are 2 issues here

1) Having the odds change after you place your bet and ...
2) Odds changing after the gate springs leading to speculation of impropriety.

1) can only be fixed by going to a fixed (pseudo-fixed?) odds type tote.

2) Fixing #2 can solve the appearance of past posting but will not impact #1.

Somehow horseplayers get the 2 confused :confused:

[GameTheory]

That's correct GT. There are 2 issues here

1) Having the odds change after you place your bet and ...
2) Odds changing after the gate springs leading to speculation of impropriety.

1) can only be fixed by going to a fixed (pseudo-fixed?) odds type tote.

2) Fixing #2 can solve the appearance of past posting but will not impact #1.

Somehow horseplayers get the 2 confused :confused:We will never have #1 under a pari-mutuel system, and we're never going to get rid of that. At some point I expect we will have (legal, taxed) exchange-based wagering in parallel with pari-mutuel. And then maybe if that is popular enough it will be the death knell for WPS wagering.

The only way to fix #2 is by the great inconvenience of shutting off wagering early -- early ENOUGH that final odds can be posted before the race starts, which would under the current technology be at least a minute or two. Then you get screwed on gate scratches, etc, or they have to reopen the betting and then wait another few minutes, etc etc. They did that a few years ago, and everyone complained.

Plus, I don't think fixing the appearance of past posting will truly affect anybody, and it won't cause anyone to bet that is not now betting. Of course, if there actually is past posting going on, that should be stopped, but actually stopping it will do nothing to negate the appearance of it because those odds are still gonna drop on the front-runners at the last minute simply because those are the horses that get bet -- you know, because they win.

[Imriledup]

Handel says they have 'unfair advantages'.


That is not correct. Every player has the ability to get an extremely large bankroll and approach one of these places and ask to be a customer. If you are going to bet millions of dollars, they aren't going to say no to you based on color, sex or religion.

Now, most players can't acquire the necessary bankroll to do this. But, that's not the fault of the players who DO have the big rolls and its not correct to say that some people have unfair advantages.

This would be like the NBA telling Kobe Bryant, "Kobe, you aren't allowed to play in the NBA because only certain people are allowed to play in this league. It doesn't matter that you can run, jump and shoot as good as anyone, we don't want you here just because" If THAT happened, than yes, its unfair to Kobe to single him out and tell him he can't play with their company, but in racing, there's no unfair situation, everyone can 'graduate' for lack of a better word, to the highest levels of the betting game. Its hard no doubt, but not impossible. This type of computer betting IS available to everyone who's betting as much as those people are betting.

I don't understand what Handel is seeing that i'm not seeing. Can someone explain the 'unfairness' that Handel talks about, because i can't figure it out.

[fmolf]

the unfairness lies in the fact that in a parimutual system all players are equal to each other.If takeout were reduced for all players this would be so.With rebates in place for only the largest of bettors this in effect has the smaller players subsidizing the larger players.sounds unfair to me.If they gave every bettor the same percentage rebate then that would be fair......I think that nyra should be commended for not allowing these offshore rebate shops to bet into their pools.At least someone is trying to protect the little players who are the backbone of this game.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Sounds like "reduced takeout" is just another word for rebate, since that does not go into the track pool. As for an advantage, depends on the ROI produced strictly by the pool wagering and actual takeout, and winning edge producing an ROI. I personally would like a rebate whenever I bet, but am not interested in following these bets into the pool because I feel I can bet selectively enough to bet with the computer teams when they are right, and not be when they are wrong- at least better than them or others betting other horses. I like to think I can pick horses on predictability enough for my ROI to do OK, computers or not! How well are late changes, weather, and track speed, and tired horses led into the gate determined by their computers?

[cj]

I completely understand the difference between #1 and #2. The problem that I have is that #2 has been proven on many occasions to be a lot more than the "appearance" of impropriety. It is "actual" impropriety, and that is unacceptable.

Great inconvenience? Really?

[BillW]

I completely understand the difference between #1 and #2. The problem that I have is that #2 has been proven on many occasions to be a lot more than the "appearance" of impropriety. It is "actual" impropriety, and that is unacceptable.

Great inconvenience? Really?

I agree, it "appears" to happen alot, actually happens less often but it DOES happen. This MUST be fixed. The real fix is a new tote system including features/speed to handle this issue seamlessly. The cheap fix is having the pools merged and final before the gate is sprung in the system we have now. How do we handle gate scratches? we'll have to figure that out. The TRA telling us that all is under control just doesn't work.

[CBedo]

Although computer programs have been sending bets into U.S. parimutuel pools for at least eight years, the programs have only recently come to provide as much as 10 percent of the national betting handle, according to the officials. We obviously see way more than 10% increases in pool sizes very late. So if they are only 10%, then how much of the other late money is a)bettors like us putting in our bets at the last moment, or b)bets that have been in the system for a while, but because of old outdated batch technology, the bets are "sitting" at some hub waiting to get to the main tote?

[proximity]

friday was a tough night for (very) late odds drops.

i had two (overlay) winners on the night. a 7-1 at ct, who ended up paying $7 and change and a 23-1 at evd who ended up paying exactly $23. :mad:

this has me possibly thinking of a new rule: whatever odds a horse is as the field approaches the gate..... expect to get that price for a $2 ticket.:(

[DJofSD]

We obviously see way more than 10% increases in pool sizes very late. So if they are only 10%, then how much of the other late money is a)bettors like us putting in our bets at the last moment, or b)bets that have been in the system for a while, but because of old outdated batch technology, the bets are "sitting" at some hub waiting to get to the main tote?
Just b/c 10% of the total handle now appears to be from computer based systems placing wagers does not mean all bets placed by those computers occur in the last few moments of the betting period. I'm sure there's a number of aspects being taken into account with these computer based wagering syndicates. One of them is to not make all of the wagers at once. It would be like buying stock in the equites market -- you don't place your order all at once. And for the mutual pools, you can only hide your bets by making relatively small bets early in the wagering period.

[lamboguy]

the unfairness lies in the fact that in a parimutual system all players are equal to each other.If takeout were reduced for all players this would be so.With rebates in place for only the largest of bettors this in effect has the smaller players subsidizing the larger players.sounds unfair to me.If they gave every bettor the same percentage rebate then that would be fair......I think that nyra should be commended for not allowing these offshore rebate shops to bet into their pools.At least someone is trying to protect the little players who are the backbone of this game.smallr players are the backbone of this game, and the game needs lots more smaller players. it really needs any type of new players. by not adressing your concerns the racing industry has no chance of cultivating and keeping new players. the advantage of horseracing vs. other spectator sports is that this is the only sport that has fan participation to different degrees. the racing game needs to exploit that to their advantage.

[fmolf]

smallr players are the backbone of this game, and the game needs lots more smaller players. it really needs any type of new players. by not adressing your concerns the racing industry has no chance of cultivating and keeping new players. the advantage of horseracing vs. other spectator sports is that this is the only sport that has fan participation to different degrees. the racing game needs to exploit that to their advantage.
I agree 100%...smaller players are the backbone of the racing game and something needs to be done for them!the only solution is to a) reduce takeout for all...b)ban rebate shops from betting into your pools(which may be illegal and possibly challenged in a court of law)..c)offer the same % rebates to all bettors regardless of amounts bet(unlikely)

[kenwoodallpromos]

TRA is the one that tracks the (still there out west) cancel delays!!
If and when they "fix" the tote, is there any reason they cannot put the expected win payoff for each horse insted of a bunch of different bottom odds? Under $10.00 would be listed in dimes ($6.0, 5.6 etc.) $10.00+ would be listed in whole dollars ($10, 38, 198 etc.)

[CBedo]

Just b/c 10% of the total handle now appears to be from computer based systems placing wagers does not mean all bets placed by those computers occur in the last few moments of the betting period. I'm sure there's a number of aspects being taken into account with these computer based wagering syndicates. One of them is to not make all of the wagers at once. It would be like buying stock in the equites market -- you don't place your order all at once. And for the mutual pools, you can only hide your bets by making relatively small bets early in the wagering period.I don't disagree that all 10% might not be coming in at the end, but your reasoning doesn't really make sense to me. Unlike the equity markets, there's not someone on the other side of the trade, and its questionable if a big "tick" on the tote would get people piling on after you, or the opposite, trying to find value else where. As for hiding bets, I think the best way is to put it in all at the last click. No one can operate on your information after that.

[DJofSD]

Perhaps my assumptions about a large betting syndicate does not apply to US based pools. But from what I glean about what happens elsewhere, especially for races in Hong Kong, the amount of exposure is huge.

I would operate a betting syndicate in a way that reduces my risk as much as possible. Multiple bets made by multiple computers over a period of time. And to the degree that I can, hide my money going into the pool as much as possible.

If the primary or only concern is hiding the bets then putting it all in at the last possible moment is the way to go.

[FenceBored]

Perhaps my assumptions about a large betting syndicate does not apply to US based pools. But from what I glean about what happens elsewhere, especially for races in Hong Kong, the amount of exposure is huge.

I would operate a betting syndicate in a way that reduces my risk as much as possible. Multiple bets made by multiple computers over a period of time. And to the degree that I can, hide my money going into the pool as much as possible.

If the primary or only concern is hiding the bets then putting it all in at the last possible moment is the way to go.

What risk? What would you be hiding? You're making a legal bet into a legal pool. Like CBedo said, the biggest concern is that other people react to what bet you make IN THIS RACE, and if you dump it all in at the last possible second, they can't respond, as the update with your bet occurs after the start of the race.

[GameTheory]

Read Dave Schwartz's Key to the Mint stuff about this, and why the big teams make their in stages leading up to post rather than all at the last minute...

[FenceBored]

Read Dave Schwartz's Key to the Mint stuff about this, and why the big teams make their in stages leading up to post rather than all at the last minute...

Will do, thanks.

[CBedo]

Read Dave Schwartz's Key to the Mint stuff about this, and why the big teams make their in stages leading up to post rather than all at the last minute...This makes some sense to me. I have been thinking about the game theory implications of betting early versus betting late. As someone who has spent way too much time studying Nash equilibrium strategies for poker tournament situations (if I do this, they should do that, which means I should have done this, which means they should....., iterating trying to find a neutral or unexploitable solution), I have wondered about the game theory behind timing of betting (if you are big enough to affect the pool).

[rrbauer]

I don't disagree that all 10% might not be coming in at the end, but your reasoning doesn't really make sense to me. Unlike the equity markets, there's not someone on the other side of the trade, and its questionable if a big "tick" on the tote would get people piling on after you, or the opposite, trying to find value else where. As for hiding bets, I think the best way is to put it in all at the last click. No one can operate on your information after that.

It's all a big "end game" for these people and getting down at the latest possible moment gives them the closest basis for their estimates of final pool totals and payoffs related to those totals. Placing those bets any earlier lessens their advantage and would be counter productive IMO.

[CBedo]

It's all a big "end game" for these people and getting down at the latest possible moment gives them the closest basis for their estimates of final pool totals and payoffs related to those totals. Placing those bets any earlier lessens their advantage and would be counter productive IMO.but if you know you like a horse, and you know that others similar to you will like it at a price, wouldn't it be in your best interest to get your money in sooner so others are getting worse value, and might not pound it even more? just a thought.

[bisket]

http://www.drf.com/news/article/106765.html


Although computer programs have been sending bets into U.S. parimutuel pools for at least eight years, the programs have only recently come to provide as much as 10 percent of the national betting handle, according to the officials. Since several large racing operations, including the New York Racing Association, prohibit the programs from betting into their pools, the computer teams almost certainly account for far more than 10 percent of the handle on some races at certain tracks.

As a result, the programs remain the driving force behind many late odds changes because of the amount of money they send into the pools just before the close of betting. In addition, the methods by which the programs work remain a source of controversy for some players who contend that the teams exploit unfair advantages in the parimutuel system - such as the lucrative rebates that push the programs into profitable territory and the ability to instantaneously place thousands of wagers.
i didn't know about this and that new york doesn't allow this. this will explain why i play new york tracks mostly. although i just kinda found my way to new york through my own judgement about these late odds changes. its alway nice to know you've made the right choices just by your own judgement as a bettor, and useful info like this backs your choices up

[slewis]

I read this article this morning and couldn't wait to find the time to reply.
First off, I've been ranting how incompetent NYRA is and these statements by Hal Handel prove my point.

Handel states "Our position remains they have an unfair advantages"

Please explain Mr. Handel. What unfair advantage? If they can place wages after the gate opens, then yes, but that's not the case and not what he means.
He goes on to say "It's been well documented. Just look at the negative settlements".
Does everyone on this board know what this means? Handel is saying that NYRA is paying out more to these wagering hubs then it takes in.

So I ask, What f-in right does NYRA have to monitor who the winners are and who the losers are?
If the game is to pick the horse who finishes first, and people are paramutuely betting accordingly and all bets are processed prior to the gate opening what in the WORLD is he talking about???????
Does Mr. Handel want to ban Ragozin or Thorograph players? After all they have come up with a mathematical formula to determine who the fastest horses are. They have an unfair advantage.
This is where the NY state appointed NYRA board members should FORCE HIM TO RESIGN immediately off of those statements.

See, in the "perfect racing world of Handel and Haywood", everyday would be Saratoga. Lots of families and ordinary folk betting $5 and $10 and that adds up to huge handle and attendance. The only people whoever win are those lucky enough to catch the right numbers betting Mom's birthday or their street address. But this isn't was pays your inflated salary, Mr. Handel, or Mr. Haywood. What a joke.
These guys STILL haven't figured out that they are NOT casino operators protecting the "house". They run a parimutuel model, therefore, the ONLY thing they should be concerned with is having the HANDLE as large as possible. That's it, case closed.
So as long as no entity is betting after the gate opens, the playing field is relatively equal, minus rebates, which are available to everyone who plays in bulk, the way Wal Mart buys in bulk and offers low prices.
It's business Mr. Handel.

NYRA has a responsibility to the STATE OF NY to increase handle, but now, they have taken it upon themselves to monitor who wins and who loses and where to payoff.
What shite.

[Imriledup]

I read this article this morning and couldn't wait to find the time to reply.
First off, I've been ranting how incompetent NYRA is and these statements by Hal Handel prove my point.

Handel states "Our position remains they have an unfair advantages"

Please explain Mr. Handel. What unfair advantage? If they can place wages after the gate opens, then yes, but that's not the case and not what he means.
He goes on to say "It's been well documented. Just look at the negative settlements".
Does everyone on this board know what this means? Handel is saying that NYRA is paying out more to these wagering hubs then it takes in.

So I ask, What f-in right does NYRA have to monitor who the winners are and who the losers are?
If the game is to pick the horse who finishes first, and people are paramutuely betting accordingly and all bets are processed prior to the gate opening what in the WORLD is he talking about???????
Does Mr. Handel want to ban Ragozin or Thorograph players? After all they have come up with a mathematical formula to determine who the fastest horses are.
This is where the NY state appointed NYRA board members should FORCE HIM TO RESIGN immediately off of those statements.

See, in the "perfect racing world of Handel and Haywood", everyday would be Saratoga. Lots of families and ordinary folk betting $5 and $10 and that adds up to huge handle and attendance. The only people whoever win are those lucky enough to catch the right numbers betting Mom's birthday or their street address. But this isn't was pays your inflated salary, Mr. Handel, or Mr. Haywood. What a joke.
These guys STILL haven't figured out that they are NOT casino operators protecting the "house". They run a parimutuel model, therefore, the ONLY thing they should be concerned with is having the HANDLE as large as possible. That's it, case closed.
So as long as no entity is betting after the gate opens, the playing field is relatively equal, minus rebates, which are available to everyone who plays in bulk, the way Wal Mart buys in bulk and offers low prices.
It's business Mr. Handel.

NYRA has a responsibility to the STATE OF NY to increase handle, but now, they have taken it upon themselves to monitor who wins and who loses and where to payoff.
What shite.


Amen.

[slewis]

Lets face it people, this whole story is about off-shore betting hubs which cannot be monitored as easily by the racing TRA who cant track who's betting what and who's getting paid what.

It's easier to read through these guys then my 10 yr old who complains he's sick and doesn't want to go to school Monday.

[Tom]

Mt 2 cents - the method of entering should be limited - phone, tellers, internet ADW. How you get the pick is your business, but it should be fair way for all to place bets, and that being by a single bet at a time. The integrity of the game ( what little it has left) is at stake IMHO.

[BillW]

Mt 2 cents - the method of entering should be limited - phone, tellers, internet ADW. How you get the pick is your business, but it should be fair way for all to place bets, and that being by a single bet at a time. The integrity of the game ( what little it has left) is at stake IMHO.

I have gotten used to conditional betting and wouldn't want to lose it. Besides, if the hubs are dumping batch bets to the central tote, what difference does it make anyway?

[slewis]

Mt 2 cents - the method of entering should be limited - phone, tellers, internet ADW. How you get the pick is your business, but it should be fair way for all to place bets, and that being by a single bet at a time. The integrity of the game ( what little it has left) is at stake IMHO.

Tom,

It was nice meeting you and I wish I had more time to spend with you and the guys and could chat more.

Regarding your 2 pennys... What difference does it make if someone is "batching" bets? Are they immune to getting left at the gate or a horse fanned 6 wide on the turn or being blocked in the stretch??

Their success is the strength of their program to compare approx odds vs horses ability. They still must pick the winner.

[GameTheory]

Well, those with big rebates do have an advantage in that it is theoretically easier for them to win -- they are getting better odds. But that advantage can't be said to be unfair unless the increased handle and betting patterns that these rebates allow them to have CAUSE the smaller non-rebated players to lose more (or win less). Which has been argued by track officials and others as being the case. It should be a matter that can be worked out mathematically and shown to be true/not true, but I'm not sure I've got a clear handle on this. Can anyone prove it one way or the other?

[slewis]

Well, those with big rebates do have an advantage in that it is theoretically easier for them to win -- they are getting better odds. But that advantage can't be said to be unfair unless the increased handle and betting patterns that these rebates allow them to have CAUSE the smaller non-rebated players to lose more (or win less). Which has been argued by track officials and others as being the case. It should be a matter that can be worked out mathematically and shown to be true/not true, but I'm not sure I've got a clear handle on this. Can anyone prove it one way or the other?


But Game theory,

Rebates are not the issue here... the issue is program betting.

Handel makes it (foolishly) clear, if you're a big rebate player and lose, we like you, if you're a big rebate player who's beating the game, we have no use for you in NY.

They are NOT (NYRA) casino operators....

Handel should be fired.

[Indulto]

I read this article this morning and couldn't wait to find the time to reply.
First off, I've been ranting how incompetent NYRA is and these statements by Hal Handel prove my point.

Handel states "Our position remains they have an unfair advantages"

Please explain Mr. Handel. What unfair advantage? If they can place wages after the gate opens, then yes, but that's not the case and not what he means.
He goes on to say "It's been well documented. Just look at the negative settlements".
Does everyone on this board know what this means? Handel is saying that NYRA is paying out more to these wagering hubs then it takes in.

So I ask, What f-in right does NYRA have to monitor who the winners are and who the losers are?
If the game is to pick the horse who finishes first, and people are paramutuely betting accordingly and all bets are processed prior to the gate opening what in the WORLD is he talking about???????
Does Mr. Handel want to ban Ragozin or Thorograph players? After all they have come up with a mathematical formula to determine who the fastest horses are. They have an unfair advantage.
This is where the NY state appointed NYRA board members should FORCE HIM TO RESIGN immediately off of those statements.

See, in the "perfect racing world of Handel and Haywood", everyday would be Saratoga. Lots of families and ordinary folk betting $5 and $10 and that adds up to huge handle and attendance. The only people whoever win are those lucky enough to catch the right numbers betting Mom's birthday or their street address. But this isn't was pays your inflated salary, Mr. Handel, or Mr. Haywood. What a joke.
These guys STILL haven't figured out that they are NOT casino operators protecting the "house". They run a parimutuel model, therefore, the ONLY thing they should be concerned with is having the HANDLE as large as possible. That's it, case closed.
So as long as no entity is betting after the gate opens, the playing field is relatively equal, minus rebates, which are available to everyone who plays in bulk, the way Wal Mart buys in bulk and offers low prices.
It's business Mr. Handel.

NYRA has a responsibility to the STATE OF NY to increase handle, but now, they have taken it upon themselves to monitor who wins and who loses and where to payoff.
What shite.Maybe NYRA should promote their position in order to attract handle from everyone who's tired of competing against rebated whales. From the article:... Racing officials, including supporters of the programs, agree that the computers are unprofitable without rebates that can go as high as 15 percent of handle on certain bets - a circumstance that suggests that rebates tilt playing fields in a betting system that, theoretically and by definition, is supposed to treat all players equally. Although the question of whether rebates are appropriate in parimutuel betting appears to have been settled, there is still some controversy regarding the computer programs' ability to peer into the bet-processing system and make bets at a speed and volume that a human cannot match. ...Perhaps if NYRA took the position that the non-professional horseplayer was their preferred customer, they could maximize off-track handle from that segment. If they at least lower takeout to competitive levels, say those of KEE/CD, they'd be in a great position to take advantage of the current dissatisfaction with synthetics in CA.

If they aren't going to compete for the whales in the P6, why not lower the minimum for that pool as well as the takeout for non-carryover days?

[GameTheory]

But Game theory,

Rebates are not the issue here... the issue is program betting.

Handel makes it (foolishly) clear, if you're a big rebate player and lose, we like you, if you're a big rebate player who's beating the game, we have no use for you in NY.

They are NOT (NYRA) casino operators....

Handel should be fired.Well, rebates are certainly part of it; and of course a big player that is a loser is not adversely affecting other bettors. So it is the big rebate players that are taking home the pools that he is concerned about. So before I'm going to call for his firing, I'd like to be shown that he is wrong. I agree with your point that he has no business keeping track of winners and losers IN GENERAL if there is a equal playing field. But if a particular group of winners do in fact have an unfair advantage and are winning AT THE EXPENSE of the smaller players not on their merits, but simply by the fact that they are big players getting a rebate, well then maybe he has a point. And aren't they? Don't those rebates allow them to dump a lot of "smart money" into the pools that doesn't overcome the entire amount of the take, but nevertheless overcomes much of it? Money they could not dump into the pools without that rebate, because they'd be losers? Which means it makes it that much difficult for everyone else to win because they get to artificially lower the odds on the better horses? Can you show otherwise? Or don't you think that matters?

For instance, I personally can bet one horse every race and achieve a $1 ROI of between 0.95 & 1.0 (win betting). Without a rebate, I'm a loser, and need to be more selective with my bets. With a rebate at the level that is currently available to me at my betting level, i.e. the minimum, I can bet every race and break-even or nearly so, maybe make a point or two into the black. With a BIG rebate (and a big bankroll), I'm now in the black several points comfortably, and at the larger tracks I can put some serious money into the pools that I simply cannot without that rebate (and raising my bet to serious levels will probably lose me a point or two with lowered odds, so I really need that big rebate). And since that money is relatively "smart", I'm now making it tougher for everyone else to win. Aren't I? Is that fair? (Note that my money is fairly smart, but still dumber than bets coming from actual winners that are non-rebated, who have to be really good.)

True or False -- it is harder for a non-rebated player to win betting into pools where heavily rebated whales are playing compared to betting into pools where they are excluded.

If true, isn't that an unfair advantage for the whales? (If false, show me the math.) Or maybe the way to put it is that it is an unfair disadvantage/burden for the smaller players...

[slewis]

Well NYRA doesn't control takeout rates, they are regulated by the state.

But at this current point in time, right now, NYRA is in NO position to be turning ANY money out of their pools. ANY.

Some of their theories are laughable and shows management is truely incompetant and out of touch.

They are feverishly pushing Albany to move on slots legislation when everyone damn well knows that a huge percentage of slot playes, especially the demographics in the Aqueduct area, are financially not in a position to be playing into a game where the odds are so heavily stacked against winning.
But Hal and Co. want their cut....... so they dont care about "those NY players."

This form of gambling (slots) Hal Handel supports, but batch betting which could bring 10's of millions into the pools he claims has no place in NY.

Just clueless.

[Tom]

My argument is that batch betting kills the pools. You have a very small percent of the players getting to use a computer to analyze what everyone else has bet in the last nano seconds and exploiting it. the game then becomse horse players vs computer experts.

I am sure they don't miss it, but I have probably bet under $200 on any NYRA tracks this year and have no intention of every playing them seriously again.

[ezrabrooks]

They run a parimutuel model, therefore, the ONLY thing they should be concerned with is having the HANDLE as large as possible.

BS comment. That might be the dumbest thing you have posted..and you have thrown out some wing dingers.

Ez

[slewis]

Well, rebates are certainly part of it; and of course a big player that is a loser is not adversely affecting other bettors. So it is the big rebate players that are taking home the pools that he is concerned about. So before I'm going to call for his firing, I'd like to be shown that he is wrong. I agree with your point that he has no business keeping track of winners and losers IN GENERAL if there is a equal playing field. But if a particular group of winners do in fact have an unfair advantage and are winning AT THE EXPENSE of the smaller players not on their merits, but simply by the fact that they are big players getting a rebate, well then maybe he has a point. And aren't they? Don't those rebates allow them to dump a lot of "smart money" into the pools that doesn't overcome the entire amount of the take, but nevertheless overcomes much of it? Money they could not dump into the pools without that rebate, because they'd be losers? Which means it makes it that much difficult for everyone else to win because they get to artificially lower the odds on the better horses? Can you show otherwise? Or don't you think that matters?

For instance, I personally can bet one horse every race and achieve a $1 ROI of between 0.95 & 1.0 (win betting). Without a rebate, I'm a loser, and need to be more selective with my bets. With a rebate at the level that is currently available to me at my betting level, i.e. the minimum, I can bet every race and break-even or nearly so, maybe make a point or two into the black. With a BIG rebate (and a big bankroll), I'm now in the black several points comfortably, and at the larger tracks I can put some serious money into the pools that I simply cannot without that rebate (and raising my bet to serious levels will probably lose me a point or two with lowered odds, so I really need that big rebate). And since that money is relatively "smart", I'm now making it tougher for everyone else to win. Aren't I? Is that fair? (Note that my money is fairly smart, but still dumber than bets coming from actual winners that are non-rebated, who have to be really good.)

True or False -- it is harder for a non-rebated player to win betting into pools where heavily rebated whales are playing compared to betting into pools where they are excluded.

If true, isn't that an unfair advantage for the whales? (If false, show me the math.) Or maybe the way to put it is that it is an unfair disadvantage/burden for the smaller players...

Again Sir,

We are not talking rebates, we are talking program betting. It just takes the rebate to give the batch program a chance to be successful.
What does NYRA care who wins or loses... thats the point of my calling for Handel's resignation.
He is NOT Steve Wynn. NYRA does NOT run a casino!!!!

Non rebate players know what they are up against. But what about the guy who loves a 10 -1 shot. A horse rejected by the rebaters "sophisticated" program?? Now they dive in the pool and 10-1 goes to 14-1... and he scores out???

Does this scenario not happen????

Programs are NOT immune to bad rides, bad trips, and the everyday mishaps of horse racing.... and if a group or entity (and I know for a fact they exist) come up with a program good enough to beat those mishaps, I say good for them.
Their percentage goes to the horseman and to the state, (be it a smaller cut then you or I).

Handel should watch what he says, or better yet shut up altogether.

[slewis]

They run a parimutuel model, therefore, the ONLY thing they should be concerned with is having the HANDLE as large as possible.

BS comment. That might be the dumbest thing you have posted..and you have thrown out some wing dingers.

Ez

Ok wing ding,

Lets hear what track management should be concerned with?

Like every week-end player calculates his ROI to the penny.

Like every guy in an OTB throughout the state knows what he's betting into (or not).

I cant wait to hear this one.

Actually, you have nothing here so Im going back to watching Arsenal - Man U.

[samyn on the green]

Unfair? These late odds drops are a value added presence. There is no way a computer can out-cap a sharp, tenured handicapper. Frequently the horses I have cashed on have risen in price from 1 minute to post to the time the gates open. Not only do I welcome the participation of the automated bot wagers I am find their presence to be very profitable.


Horseracing is not a science like chess where every move can be mathematically calculated by a computer. Handicapping is an art. The infinite consequences of the action of the blood and guts participants can never be fully accounted for by a computer.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Ok wing ding,

Lets hear what track management should be concerned with?

Like every week-end player calculates his ROI to the penny.

Like every guy in an OTB throughout the state knows what he's betting into (or not).

I cant wait to hear this one.

Actually, you have nothing here so Im going back to watching Arsenal - Man U.
This is from the CHRB website-
"Mission Statement

The purpose of the California Horse Racing Board is to regulate pari-mutuel wagering for the protection of the betting public, to promote horse racing and breeding industries, and to maximize State of California tax revenues."
Their 3-part mission statement is 3 parts increasing handle!!

[slewis]

This is from the CHRB website-
"Mission Statement

The purpose of the California Horse Racing Board is to regulate pari-mutuel wagering for the protection of the betting public, to promote horse racing and breeding industries, and to maximize State of California tax revenues."
Their 3-part mission statement is 3 parts increasing handle!!


KW,

Im not sure what point you're making here, but in the case of NY State, you might be confusing the job of NYRA with that of the NYS racing and wagering board.

NYRA should have 1 concern, and that is HANDLE, attained within the guidelines set forth by the NYSRWB.

[startngate]

But if a particular group of winners do in fact have an unfair advantage and are winning AT THE EXPENSE of the smaller players not on their merits, but simply by the fact that they are big players getting a rebate, well then maybe he has a point.The problem with this statement is that there are ALWAYS players that have an advantage over smaller players.

Some players get up at 5:30am every morning and head to their local track and clock their own morning workouts. Some use expensive handicapping data that the general public doesn't know about. Some are playing the races as their job and spend all day watching replays and handicapping. Some come to the track every day. Some get inside information from trainers and jockeys. The list goes on.

And yes, some even develop sophisticated software programs to aid in their handicapping and betting.

IMO, in the pari-mutuel system there are no 'unfair' advantages ... assuming of course that the pools lock before the race begins, and anyone who wants to take the time (and/or invest the capital) has equal access. Those players that have some sort of advantage ARE winning based on their merits. They have figured out how to make money playing the races.

[Dave Schwartz]

Lets face it people, this whole story is about off-shore betting hubs which cannot be monitored as easily by the racing TRA who cant track who's betting what and who's getting paid what.

This is untrue.

While the biggest players ARE betting off-shore, the money goes directly into the pools just like a wager at YouBet or any of several stateside providers.

In addition, the regulation BY THE TRACKS (especially TrackNet) is huge!

The tracks (actually, their parent companies) have set minimums and actually audit the ADWs tomake sure they are complying. (That is why PTC has had the difficult time getting tracks: because they were note enforcing the minimums.)

Do not think for a minute that these "off-shore" entities are not "controlled." They are HIGHLY controlled.


The truth is that these ADWs do a heck of a job with/for their players. Frankly, the tracks themselves could learn a lot from the ADWs' customer service.


I find it interesting that when I first posted this stuff about "whale volume" many people found it difficult to believe. I guess seeing it "in print" somewhere has more credibility.



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[GameTheory]

The problem with this statement is that there are ALWAYS players that have an advantage over smaller players.

Some players get up at 5:30am every morning and head to their local track and clock their own morning workouts. Some use expensive handicapping data that the general public doesn't know about. Some are playing the races as their job and spend all day watching replays and handicapping. Some come to the track every day. Some get inside information from trainers and jockeys. The list goes on.

And yes, some even develop sophisticated software programs to aid in their handicapping and betting.

IMO, in the pari-mutuel system there are no 'unfair' advantages ... assuming of course that the pools lock before the race begins, and anyone who wants to take the time (and/or invest the capital) has equal access. Those players that have some sort of advantage ARE winning based on their merits. They have figured out how to make money playing the races.There are advantages, and there are (possibly) unfair advantages -- these players are being granted different rules to operate under. Is that what you call equal access? They aren't getting up early -- they are simply given cash because they bet large amounts. Which allows them to bet those large amounts. Yes, they have "equal access" in the sense that anybody that wishes to put millions of dollars in the pools on a regular basis is also granted those rebates. It is therefore possible, at least in theory, to join their ranks. Still, is that what we mean by equal playing field?

[slewis]

This is untrue.





Regards,
Dave Schwartz

While the biggest players ARE betting off-shore, the money goes directly into the pools just like a wager at YouBet or any of several stateside providers.

In addition, the regulation BY THE TRACKS (especially TrackNet) is huge!

The tracks (actually, their parent companies) have set minimums and actually audit the ADWs tomake sure they are complying. (That is why PTC has had the difficult time getting tracks: because they were note enforcing the minimums.)

Do not think for a minute that these "off-shore" entities are not "controlled." They are HIGHLY controlled.

DAve,


You say yes. I say no.... I have to leave it at that.

But I need for you to explain to me the "regulation" they are scrutinized under.

The FBI?... CIA?? TRA???.....

Explain Dave.

[Jeff P]

Tracks and racing associations certainly DO audit...

NYRA enforces a rule that limits computer generated wagers to 1 wager per second. I believe (someone please correct me if I am wrong about this) that several years ago NYRA pulled the signal from RGS because they caught RGS not enforcing this rule - and have refused to allow them to have it back even though they have approached NYRA several times.

Saying that NYRA doesn't allow computer players isn't entirely accurate.

Currently there ARE large volume computer players betting NYRA. However, they are doing it through legal licensed onshore ADWs that rebate who are enforcing the 1 wager per second rule. The only real difference to the player is that if he wants to submit 400 individual wagers in one race he has to begin submitting wagers earlier at NYRA than elsewhere. It's not that problematic.

As part of the audit process they'll also force an ADW to stop paying rebates to accounts that fail to meet min handle requirements.

IMHO the industry has enough hard evidence at hand to see the effect that reduced effective takeout for rebated players has had. Their collective handle has GROWN to the point where it now represents as much as 15 percent of total handle. Handle from other sources keeps shrinking.

Why?

Because reduced effective takeout makes racing an attractive gambling proposition.

I think it's long past time that the industry started looking at ways to make the game an equally attractive gambling proposition for everybody.

I say LOWER the $1 million a year minimum handle requirement for rebates to $100k. That's something very attainable for a LOT of players who don't see racing as an attractive gambling proposition at all. It would generate a LOT of new interest and handle without bastardizing everyday on track handle from recreational players.

But why stop there?

IMHO a complete paradigm shift is what's needed most. Significantly reduced takeout for everybody and marketing racing as the most attractive gambling game on the planet is the real way to turn things around.



-jp

.

[Dave Schwartz]

You say yes. I say no.... I have to leave it at that.

But I need for you to explain to me the "regulation" they are scrutinized under.

The FBI?... CIA?? TRA???.....

Explain Dave.

It is pure economic control. If they do not follow the rules laid down by the tracks/TrackNet, they lose their signal and their business.

As for the FBI, etc. Remember IRG, the off-shore company purchased by YouBet? They were shut down because of interstate wagering violations. The bets for these companies are always flowing through a US-based server. Therefore, they are "arrestable."


Please note that mine is not an "opinion." I am simply stating facts.

Dave

[kenwoodallpromos]

KW,

Im not sure what point you're making here, but in the case of NY State, you might be confusing the job of NYRA with that of the NYS racing and wagering board.

NYRA should have 1 concern, and that is HANDLE, attained within the guidelines set forth by the NYSRWB.
IMO boards, tracks, tellers, ADWs, horsemen, concessionaires, bettors, should ALL be concerned #1 with raising handle.
Bettors should ALL be concerned #2 with making sure they bet WITH the computer geeks whenever they bet correctly and AGAINST them when they bet incorrectly. And, IMO, since computers can only do what they are programmed to do, a little bit of study is all it should take to predict which races and horses will be bet down the most by geeks using their "inefficiency programs" and by studying the ROI's of big betdowns. Unless, of course, those geek "Ps" are also predicting the payoff AFTER the dropdown!
In other words, maybe people can beat those computers by making a "betdowwn inefficiency" computer program! I believe it can be done because dropdown horses lose, and dropdowns do become underlays sometimes!!

[GameTheory]

Unless, of course, those geek "Ps" are also predicting the payoff AFTER the dropdown!They do, of course. What kind of geek worth his salt wouldn't be factoring in the effect of his wager on the pool? That's how they figure out how much they can bet -- it is usually limited by the pool size more than by the normal parameters of probability/odds that that the rest of us look at. Of course, they are estimating the final size of the pool, but that's not hard to do.

[Indulto]

… Saying that NYRA doesn't allow computer players isn't entirely accurate.

Currently there ARE large volume computer players betting NYRA. However, they are doing it through legal licensed onshore ADWs that rebate who are enforcing the 1 wager per second rule. The only real difference to the player is that if he wants to submit 400 individual wagers in one race he has to begin submitting wagers earlier at NYRA than elsewhere. It's not that problematic.Then why are the NY P6 pools not as large is those in CA?… I say LOWER the $1 million a year minimum handle requirement for rebates to $100k. That's something very attainable for a LOT of players who don't see racing as an attractive gambling proposition at all. It would generate a LOT of new interest and handle without bastardizing everyday on track handle from recreational players. …What do you base this on? What % increase in handle would this likely achieve as opposed to lowering takeout for all to 10% wps/12% exotics?

For discussion's sake, suppose blended takeout were 11% with 4.5% (of total) going to purses. On $15 Billion, that would generate $675 million in purses. Last year Jess Jackson complained that “only” $1.4 billion was available to horseman to offset their investment of $4 Billion. How much of that came from slot subsidies and stakes nominations? Purses have been cut and stakes races cancelled in 2009, so purses are no longer at that level.

How much racing would still have to be cut at various levels and venues to increase the number of starters AND the number of competitive contenders in most races to attract sufficient handle at this lower rate in order to sustain at least current purse levels?

[Jeff P]

Then why are the NY P6 pools not as large is those in CA?I was talking specifically about current race exotics such as exactas, tris, and supers where you want an idea as to probability and payoff for individual combos. Current odds help to establish that. Obviously the more current the better. Without a doubt the 1 second per wager rule has discouraged some teams from playing NYRA. However, some of the other large players see that as opportunity. I happen to know that there ARE large computer players successfully playing into NYRA pools.

The pick6 is a completely different animal because current odds are only available for the first leg. Barring scratches or races off the turf it can be planned for and played well ahead of time.

What do you base this on? What % increase in handle would this likely achieve as opposed to lowering takeout for all to 10% wps/12% exotics? I base it on several economic studies that I have read including a study done for Stevenson & Associates for the National HBPA by a gentleman named Will Cummings.
http://www.nationalhbpa.com/resources/Cummings_report7-17-04.PDF

There's plenty of other quotes I could have used from this one study but here's an excerpt:
The takeout has played a role, too. Bettors, or at least a very significant subset of them, are highly sensitive to the rate of takeout. This is demonstrated by the experiences of NYRA and New York City OTB, by statistical studies that have looked at broad cross-sections of data, by the dramatic increases in handle that small numbers of bettors have provided at Incentive Wagering Services, and by parallels with other types of gambling. Even the industry’s frequently-touted “churn factor” of 7 implies that lower takeouts would benefit the industry -- if that is the case, we would make more money with the takeout at 14% than we do today. Higher takeouts have depressed handle, but this trend can be reversed. Investing in players (via rebates) can be just as or even more effective than investing in bricks and mortar and new technology as means to grow revenues for the industry.

Every study that I've ever read says pretty much the same thing: Racing's takeout is too high. IMHO the industry has struggled vs. it's competition because it continues to ignore some very good advice that it has paid for.

Two other gambling industries that have benefitted enormously over the past 15 years by ACTING on the advice of its paid for economic studies are Casinos and a handful of State Lotteries. Both have managed to grow substantially over the past 15 years while racing handle during that time has stagnated.

How much racing would still have to be cut at various levels and venues to increase the number of starters AND the number of competitive contenders in most races to attract sufficient handle at this lower rate in order to sustain at least current purse levels?Probably a LOT! But that still wouldn't do it. Purse levels are irrelevant. Horses or "the show" isn't what attracts or grows handle. Attractiveness as a gambling prospect is what draws betting dollars.

That much has been proven over and over again - Not just by casinos and state lotteries (both MA and GA grew their bottom lines enormously by raising prize payouts) but in racing where rebated players are concerned.

Drop the $1 million min handle requirement for rebates down to $100k or just reduce the effective take substantially for everybody and market the game in the right way and we're probably looking at $30 billion in all sources handle a decade from now instead of the $8 to $10 billion that racing is on track for.

There's no nice way to say it: In the eyes of gamblers who wager on other forms of gambling like blackjack, slots, poker, and sports - racing sucks as a gambling venture. For racing to flourish, I strongly believe the first requirement is: racing has to find a way to become an attractive gambling game! Everything else follows from that.


-jp

.

[garyoz]

Mt 2 cents - the method of entering should be limited - phone, tellers, internet ADW. How you get the pick is your business, but it should be fair way for all to place bets, and that being by a single bet at a time. The integrity of the game ( what little it has left) is at stake IMHO.

They tried this with "program trading" on Wall Street in the late '80's. Tried to require manual input of all trades. In the long run, it didn't work--just introduced too much inefficiency and cost. If you've been following the discussion of regulating "High Frequency Trading" in the financial markets and the Goldman law suit against an ex-employee who stole computer code, you see the surge in milli-second trading. Personally, I think that it adds liquidity. In racing I have no objection to the high tech teams. Greater handle is good for the game. I also think they paint pictures during the pre-race by making wagers then cancelling tickets. Just like The Street. I think they follow price action in the pools as part of their strategy, much like quants in financial markets. However, I do doubt they mess around much in tracks like EVD. In an earlier example in this thread, calculate how much money moved the horse from 23 to 1 to 11 to 1 at EVD. My guess is not much--not enough for the syndicates to mess around with. Think it is the major tracks where there is the greatest impact (obviously).

[Imriledup]

I was talking specifically about current race exotics such as exactas, tris, and supers where you want an idea as to probability and payoff for individual combos. Current odds help to establish that. Obviously the more current the better. Without a doubt the 1 second per wager rule has discouraged some teams from playing NYRA. However, some of the other large players see that as opportunity. I happen to know that there ARE large computer players successfully playing into NYRA pools.

The pick6 is a completely different animal because current odds are only available for the first leg. Barring scratches or races off the turf it can be planned for and played well ahead of time.

I base it on several economic studies that I have read including a study done for Stevenson & Associates for the National HBPA by a gentleman named Will Cummings.
http://www.nationalhbpa.com/resources/Cummings_report7-17-04.PDF

There's plenty of other quotes I could have used from this one study but here's an excerpt:


Every study that I've ever read says pretty much the same thing: Racing's takeout is too high. IMHO the industry has struggled vs. it's competition because it continues to ignore some very good advice that it has paid for.

Two other gambling industries that have benefitted enormously over the past 15 years by ACTING on the advice of its paid for economic studies are Casinos and a handful of State Lotteries. Both have managed to grow substantially over the past 15 years while racing handle during that time has stagnated.

Probably a LOT! But that still wouldn't do it. Purse levels are irrelevant. Horses or "the show" isn't what attracts or grows handle. Attractiveness as a gambling prospect is what draws betting dollars.

That much has been proven over and over again - Not just by casinos and state lotteries (both MA and GA grew their bottom lines enormously by raising prize payouts) but in racing where rebated players are concerned.

Drop the $1 million min handle requirement for rebates down to $100k or just reduce the effective take substantially for everybody and market the game in the right way and we're probably looking at $30 billion in all sources handle a decade from now instead of the $8 to $10 billion that racing is on track for.

There's no nice way to say it: In the eyes of gamblers who wager on other forms of gambling like blackjack, slots, poker, and sports - racing sucks as a gambling venture. For racing to flourish, I strongly believe the first requirement is: racing has to find a way to become an attractive gambling game! Everything else follows from that.


-jp

.


I agree with you when you say that purse levels are irrelevant. Funny how ALL of the slots money goes to fund these purses, it all goes to owners and zero goes to bettors. Why not take some of this slots money and keep it out of the hands of owners and put it in the hands of bettors in the form of carryovers? When the slots money comes around, just take that money and say "we're going to start today's 3rd race exacta pool with 20 grand of new money" Think of how much handle a typical race would get EXTRA if this slots money went into the pool as a carryover.

[Indulto]

I base it on several economic studies that I have read including a study done for Stevenson & Associates for the National HBPA by a gentleman named Will Cummings.
http://www.nationalhbpa.com/resourc...port7-17-04.PDF (http://www.nationalhbpa.com/resources/Cummings_report7-17-04.PDF)

Yes, the Cummings study is a good reference to support lowering takeout generally, but I was hoping you would provide some justification for your SPECIFIC suggestion that the annual handle threshold to qualify for rebates be lowered from $1 Million annually to $100K.… Purse levels are irrelevant. Horses or "the show" isn't what attracts or grows handle. Attractiveness as a gambling prospect is what draws betting dollars. …I think purse levels are relevant to the discussion because it appears that the reason horsemen and tracks are resisting lower direct takeout is that they don’t believe the resulting increase in handle will be enough to maintain even the currently lower purse levels.

Hasn’t Mr. Zorn been voicing that concern despite his support for lower takout?

[lamboguy]

a reduced takeout rate might increase the amount of the handle but not make up the diference of what is lost. for instance say NYRA reduces its take from 15% to 10%. they would now have to increase their average daily handle from $10milion a day to $15million per day. in our racing world today can you really see the handle increasing 50% the way the game is run? there is no chance in life that that could be accomplished by just lowering takeout. the game needs a complete overhaul, i know how to increase the handle in new york on a saturday afternoon to $100 million and have the host track keep more of the take. do they want to do that? answer no. why? it would take to much work and sacrifice on their part to get it done. the racing business has no vision for the future whatsoever. take a look at the ocala breeders sales last week, down 38%. it will continue to decline until drastic measures are taken to insure the vialbilty of the sport. the game is being run by people that haven't changed in 40 years. these people thought that all they have to do to get people in is open the doors and sell saugy hot-dogs with mustard that has been sitting around for months at a time. they got the simulcast, now they got the video machines. soon they are going to cry that they need more space for the machines and will ask to do away with racing period. there are some in the sport that are trying to make an effort for existance, most could care less as long as they get their paychecks.

[Jeff P]

Purses are relevant?

Bettors don''t sit elbow to elbow playing 21 for $25 a hand because the house uses really expensive decks of cards. Likewise they don't crowd around a noisy craps table because the house uses imported hand woven green felt. And they don't buy scratchers tickets in MA or GA by the millions because the state lottery commission decided to use ink that costs $5k an ounce. Attractiveness from a gambling perspective is what causes bettors to open up their wallets for ANY game.

Give me 9 or 10 percent effective takeout and 10-12 horse fields of 10k claimers running for 12k-20k purses. I'll take that ANY day over 20 plus percent blended takeout and 5-6 horse fields of stakes races that the current brain trust THINKS I want. I'll bet there are 10's of thousands of other bettors who feel the same way. And 100 times that number who WOULD come to feel the same way if racing became an attractive gambling proposition first and foremost.

It doesn't matter what Zorn or Jackson or any group of owners think. I repeat: Purses are irrelevant. Get over it. What's relevant is that racing is a business. What matters most in any business is what CUSTOMERS think.

This thread is about the fact that rebated handle has grown to the point where it is now more than 10 percent of all handle. I say the real number right now is closer to 15. And it'll get closer to 20 a few years out.

WHY?

It's easy. The effective takeout for a rebated whale comes pretty close to 10 percent no matter what the track or pool. Under those circumstances the game becomes an attractive gamble. So what we have here is a category of handle that is GROWING while other categories of handle keep SHRINKING.

I gurantee you that if takeout were reduced to a flat 9 or 10 percent - every track - every pool - every day - and racing cleaned up its act from an integrity standpoint and then marketed itself as the greatest gambling game on the planet - handle would explode upwards. You would see long term sustainable growth and $30 billion (adjusted for inflation in terms of today's dollars) all sources handle by 2020 would be well within reach.

Sure, purse levels might be relevant to the current group of industry decision makers. But what have THEIR decisions led to? Handle that constantly shrinks? Lower market share among customers who consider themselves gamblers? Lower per capita wagering numbers from the customers that racing still has? Odds that change after the gates open? Trainers who cheat by using drugs? Takeout that's too high? Cheaters who cancel bets after the gate opens because they saw their horse break in a tangle while the industry knowingly looks the other way? Pools that fail to close and merge 8-10 times a year again while the industry tries to tell us that the problem is really all in our heads?

Owners, track operators, and horsemen can keep the status quo if they want to. I can't force them to change. But if they do there's a price to be paid. I think it might be a safe bet that if we keep to the status quo all sources handle adjusted for inflation in today's dollars could be $8 billion by 2020. And maybe $3 billion by 2040.

All I can do is point out the obvious.


-jp

.

[Imriledup]

I remember one day at Fairplex a couple years ago they had a HUGE carryover, and the fans bet MILLIONS into Fairplex. The first leg of the bet was a 5k claimer. No one cared, they bet as much as they would have bet if it was a million dollar stakes race. The pool is what it was going to be regardless of the quality of the runners.

[Indulto]

jp,
Why do you keep avoiding further discussion of your suggestion to reduce qualifying annual handle for rebates from $! M to $100k?Purses are relevant?

Bettors don''t sit elbow to elbow playing 21 for $25 a hand because the house uses really expensive decks of cards. Likewise they don't crowd around a noisy craps table because the house uses imported hand woven green felt. And they don't buy scratchers tickets in MA or GA by the millions because the state lottery commission decided to use ink that costs $5k an ounce. Attractiveness from a gambling perspective is what causes bettors to open up their wallets for ANY game.

Give me 9 or 10 percent effective takeout and 10-12 horse fields of 10k claimers running for 12k-20k purses. I'll take that ANY day over 20 plus percent blended takeout and 5-6 horse fields of stakes races that the current brain trust THINKS I want. I'll bet there are 10's of thousands of other bettors who feel the same way. And 100 times that number who WOULD come to feel the same way if racing became an attractive gambling proposition first and foremost.First of all, we are not in disagreement that equally lower effective takeout for all is desirable, and that when that is combined with larger fields, the result is generally a more attractive gambling product. However, a steady diet of cheap claimers, state-bred maidens, and other low-level events is not what most recreational bettors and many influential horseowners want to see.It doesn't matter what Zorn or Jackson or any group of owners think. I repeat: Purses are irrelevant. Get over it. What's relevant is that racing is a business. What matters most in any business is what CUSTOMERS think.Ignoring what 95% of racing's customers want will eventually relegate computer teams to competing against each other – a situation where even rebating is unlikely to enable profitability.This thread is about the fact that rebated handle has grown to the point where it is now more than 10 percent of all handle. I say the real number right now is closer to 15. And it'll get closer to 20 a few years out.If you continue to make game unattractive to non-professional players, you’ll wind up with 80% of the pools.WHY?

It's easy. The effective takeout for a rebated whale comes pretty close to 10 percent no matter what the track or pool. Under those circumstances the game becomes an attractive gamble. So what we have here is a category of handle that is GROWING while other categories of handle keep SHRINKING.You’re proving my point. Rebated handle isn’t growing in actual terms, only in relative terms as overall handle continues to shrink.I gurantee you that if takeout were reduced to a flat 9 or 10 percent - every track - every pool - every day - and racing cleaned up its act from an integrity standpoint and then marketed itself as the greatest gambling game on the planet - handle would explode upwards. You would see long term sustainable growth and $30 billion (adjusted for inflation in terms of today's dollars) all sources handle by 2020 would be well within reach.Not if every track’s racing card resembles those of Fairplex.Sure, purse levels might be relevant to the current group of industry decision makers. But what have THEIR decisions led to? Handle that constantly shrinks? Lower market share among customers who consider themselves gamblers?Are you talking about recreational bettors here as opposed to professionals, investors, and elitists? ;)Lower per capita wagering numbers from the customers that racing still has? Odds that change after the gates open? Trainers who cheat by using drugs? Takeout that's too high? Cheaters who cancel bets after the gate opens because they saw their horse break in a tangle while the industry knowingly looks the other way? Pools that fail to close and merge 8-10 times a year again while the industry tries to tell us that the problem is really all in our heads?Would it be inaccurate to say that some of those you allege to be "cheating" are simply using advantages available to them and not others?Owners, track operators, and horsemen can keep the status quo if they want to. I can't force them to change. But if they do there's a price to be paid. I think it might be a safe bet that if we keep to the status quo all sources handle adjusted for inflation in today's dollars could be $8 billion by 2020. And maybe $3 billion by 2040.

All I can do is point out the obvious.What apparently isn’t obvious to some professional players is that the situation that enables them, collectively, to routinely separate the overwhelming majority of non-professionals from their limited bankrolls is also killing interest in the game as surely as the wrong-headed factions in control of racing that you criticize, but who are also enabling selective rebating.

Perhaps the professional “gamblers” whose computers identify targets for their rebated dollars don’t care what the level of competition or “quality” of the field might be beyond the numerical advantages that are calculated for them, but those for whom racing is still a sport certainly do.

If anything, this discussion has convinced me that, if indeed NYRA is supporting an emphasis on racing as a sport (at least at SAR and BEL), and is more concerned with retaining and expanding the 95% of its customers who are responsible for “only” 85% of their handle rather than cater to exploiters of a system intended as entertainment who may arguably be “cheating” their preferred customers as surely as other "advantage takers," then I say more power to them.

However, they’ll still have to reduce direct takeout to increase handle from that customer base. Perhaps eliminating most of the excess in graded stake purses over the required minimum is one way to do that as well as avoiding divisional scheduling conflicts to increase field size. Another is to distribute purse money on a sliding scale depending on field size with any purse money withheld used as bonuses for subsequent full fields within that division/level.

I would prefer to see winter racing abolished in NY, but perhaps NYRA should test out your theories on optimal takeout and full lower level fields this winter if the OTB re-structuring can be accomplished by then.

[bobbyt62]

racing only flourished when it was, by and large, the only game in town, legally. it's a very expensive thing to conduct, especially in relation to poker and sports. unless you're steve wynn, you can deal blackjack and slots without spending megamillions. a lot of vegas and most state casinos are not REAL high end. racing needs a large facility with lots of people working there, has a fairly low return to the actual property owner in relation the other alternatives for the land occupied (check put the financials on tracks other than cd with the derby and simos), requires numerous owners to finance the game (horses), of which the cheapest (low end claimers) show the highest percentage of owners who lose money (you wanna lose 10k a year on a 5k claimer?). i could have used a comma there, but it's getting long. compared to most other gambles, it should be obvious that by its' very nature, it's gonna cost somebody (somebodies) a lot of money to put this show on so bettors can bet it. they play sports without gamblers having to absorb these and many other costs. i love racing but i've hung up my betting shoes (on racing--not sports and poker) for a while ---i even posted about it. i'm certainly not defending high takeouts--they're one more reason i'm quitting for now. but i understand why they are what they are. tracks, horsemen, states. owners, et al. have seen only increasing business and money for years when they were THE GAME, and even grew slightly after that until last year. if you don't vote with your money, they can't hear!

[Jeff P]

jp,
Why do you keep avoiding further discussion of your suggestion to reduce qualifying annual handle for rebates from $! M to $100k?Avoiding the idea? Are you kidding me?

I'm absolutely 100 percent in favor of it. Based on conversations and email exchanges with hundreds of players in the past year who fit the category of serious bettor but less than $1 mil a year THEY are strongly in favor of the idea too.

Understand that there are lots of serious bettors who bet more than 100k a year but bet less than $1 mil a year. Also understand that the industry has completely turned their backs to players who fit this category.

Almost none of them are betting serious money in the parimutuel pools right now. The few who ARE betting serious money (but less than $1 mil a year) are doing it offshore. EVERY SINGLE ONE of these players that I have spoken with (who are betting offshore) has told me they WANT to bet onshore but WON'T because of PRICING. Better rebates are available offshore than onshore.

Racing doesn't compete AT ALL for the business of the serious player who bets less than $1 mil a year. But offshores certainly do.

How many serious players who bet less than $1 mil a year are ever going to play at full takeout into the pools just because some idiot in a suit tells them "But we put on the show?"

Umm... Nobody.

Dropping the $1 mil a year min handle requirement for rebates to $100k will enable racing to earn the business of A LOT of serious players who aren't playing at all in the parimutuel pools right now.

Again, just pointing out the obvious.


-jp

.

[CBedo]

If the rebate minimums were lowered from a million to a hundred thousand, who loses that incremental money that the player is getting? Is it the ADW that isn't paying the rebate now and would have to (or not be competitive)?

(And I'm not talking about Keynsian multiplier effects of the money going back into the pools, just the accounting of the original dollars that get bet).

[cj]

It would have to come from the ADW. The tracks control rebates now, which to be honest I have never understood. Why do they care what an ADW does with its money?

The are basically trying to stifle competition since they get more from on track bets and also simulcast bets placed at another track. I'm not sure on the latter though, somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

[cj]

Indulto,

I believe Jeff and definitely myself would rather have reduced overall lower takeout than reducing rebate minimums so some bettors are left shut out.

Is that realistic though? The tracks don't seem willing to go that far at this point. However, maybe if rebate minimums were reduced to 100k and handle rose substantially, they would be open to an overall reduction.

You don't start out training for a marathon by running 15 miles on day one.

[aaron]

NYRA gets a bigger percentage from bets placed on track or placed off track thru a NYRA ONE account. If a bet is placed thru any other ADW NYRA gets a lower amount.

[BillW]

It would have to come from the ADW. The tracks control rebates now, which to be honest I have never understood. Why do they care what an ADW does with its money?


The whole economic model in horse racing is flakey. Why would horsemen care if ADW X carried track Y's signal? Why aren't they only worried about how high the purses are and if not high enough, going somewhere else? It shouldn't matter to the horsemen if tracks were holding bake sales to build their purse fund. Evereybody in racing is concerned about things that don't matter to them, no wonder it's in the state that is in.

[BillW]

NYRA gets a bigger percentage from bets placed on track or placed off track thru a NYRA ONE account. If a bet is placed thru any other ADW NYRA gets a lower amount.

Stopping that bet through an ADW account gets them even less.

[Jeff P]

If the rebate minimums were lowered from a million to a hundred thousand, who loses that incremental money that the player is getting? Is it the ADW that isn't paying the rebate now and would have to (or not be competitive)?Great question. Here's how I see it:

First, understand the idea behind the suggestion is that NEW money is brought into the game by hitting demographics that racing has completely ignored:

1. The serious bettor who is already sold on racing but who bets less than $1 mil a year.

2. The serious bettor who shuns racing but bets in a serious way on other forms of gambling: sports, cards, slots, etc.

Who loses first?

Offshore non parimutuel books would lose as players began discovering that competitive pricing was available onshore.

Who gains first?

Onshore ADWs that rebate would stand to gain. Players who aren't betting serious money onshore now would be the ffirst to realize racing has become attractive to them as a gambling venture. As a result they would start to bet more and more. A percentage would be net winners long term - who would tell their friends about what they do and how they do it - creating a domino effect drawing new bettors into the game. I'm guessing quite a few would start talking about it on the internet - multiplying the domino effect.

Eventually serious bettors who aren't involved in racing at all would start to see racing as a favorable gambling venture.

Who loses once racing starts to be known as an attractive gamble?

Casinos, poker, and state lotteries would lose out as bettors started to realize racing was an attractive gambling game.

Who else gains long term?

Tracks would gain from this long term. Why? Because the domino effect is new money coming into the game. Tracks would be getting incremental new business - by doing nothing other than loosening the reigns a bit.

Horsemen would gain long term because some of the incremental new money flowing in would be allocated towards purses.

What stays the same?

On track business stays the same. The recreational bettors who play on track but who bet nowhere close to $100k a year would still go out to the track.



-jp

.

[Jeff P]

NYRA gets a bigger percentage from bets placed on track or placed off track thru a NYRA ONE account. If a bet is placed thru any other ADW NYRA gets a lower amount.Keep in mind that there are countless examples from other industries - music, telephone, newspaper, department stores, banking, stock trading, etc. where trying to enforce a "We are a monopoly and therefore your only option" mentality has failed.

100 percent of nothing is nothing.

Which often ends up being the case when a monopoly tries to impose its will on its customers in an open marketplace.

Racing is no different.

-jp

.

[Jeff P]

I believe Jeff and definitely myself would rather have reduced overall lower takeout than reducing rebate minimums so some bettors are left shut out.

Is that realistic though? The tracks don't seem willing to go that far at this point. However, maybe if rebate minimums were reduced to 100k and handle rose substantially, they would be open to an overall reduction.

You don't start out training for a marathon by running 15 miles on day one.Exactly. :ThmbUp:

-jp

.

[Indulto]

Avoiding the idea? Are you kidding me?

I'm absolutely 100 percent in favor of it. Based on conversations and email exchanges with hundreds of players in the past year who fit the category of serious bettor but less than $1 mil a year THEY are strongly in favor of the idea too.And why not? Who wouldn’t want to become another player of privilege in the pari-mutuel pools? Assuming that every group of ten such players constitutes a whale equivalent, you would be enabling 20-50 new whales who would theoretically add $20-50 million to handle which would be 0.1-0.3% of $13 Billion.Understand that there are lots of serious bettors who bet more than 100k a year but bet less than $1 mil a year. Also understand that the industry has completely turned their backs to players who fit this category.

Almost none of them are betting serious money in the parimutuel pools right now. The few who ARE betting serious money (but less than $1 mil a year) are doing it offshore. EVERY SINGLE ONE of these players that I have spoken with (who are betting offshore) has told me they WANT to bet onshore but WON'T because of PRICING. Better rebates are available offshore than onshore.It’s my understanding that when one is a winner when betting with bookies, either the bookie stops taking one’s bets or else he dumps them (sometimes piggybacking them) into the parimutual pools (possibly getting a rebate in the process). So I think my projections based on your assumptions are too high. ;) Racing doesn't compete AT ALL for the business of the serious player who bets less than $1 mil a year. But offshores certainly do.The same can be said about the serious/passionate hobbyist.How many serious players who bet less than $1 mil a year are ever going to play at full takeout into the pools just because some idiot in a suit tells them "But we put on the show?"

Umm... Nobody.Ditto for those who bet on a smaller scale.Dropping the $1 mil a year min handle requirement for rebates to $100k will enable racing to earn the business of A LOT of serious players who aren't playing at all in the parimutuel pools right now.And it could also lead to further alienation of the recreational bettor and increasing loss of their contribution to handle.

[Indulto]

Indulto,

I believe Jeff and definitely myself would rather have reduced overall lower takeout than reducing rebate minimums so some bettors are left shut out.

Is that realistic though? The tracks don't seem willing to go that far at this point. However, maybe if rebate minimums were reduced to 100k and handle rose substantially, they would be open to an overall reduction.

You don't start out training for a marathon by running 15 miles on day one.In that case, we should go all out for the overall reduction. I doubt any progress will be made until someone can create a model relating purses, fieldsize, and handle which shows that a reasonable initial compromise could lead to a situation where benefits to all parties would increase as handle continued to improve.

[Jeff P]

What apparently isn’t obvious to some professional players is that the situation that enables them, collectively, to routinely separate the overwhelming majority of non-professionals from their limited bankrolls is also killing interest in the game as surely as the wrong-headed factions in control of racing that you criticize, but who are also enabling selective rebating.That line of thinking is just completely WRONG.

The professional player generating long term profits and growing a bank to astronomical size is doing what?

WINNING.

In ANY gambling game or financial endeavor the ONE thing that generates the greatest amount of new interest and brings in the most new money to a game is the general public discovering that WINNERS EXIST.

As evidence... It happened in the 60's with blackjack after Ed Thorp published Beat The Dealer. Why? Because he proved with statistical certainty that 21 was beatable. The masses that flooded into casinos to play 21 couldn't beat the game because they hadn't studied and practiced counting and playing hands correctly long or hard enough to become good at it. But that didn't matter. They flooded into casinos to play 21 because they now believed the game could be beaten. Blackjack revenue skyrocketed and 40 plus years later 21 is still one of the world's most popular games.

It's happened in the finanical markets many times over - and on a scale that dwarfs 21. Again, people jump into the market not because they have the singular ability to make winning trades - but because barriers to entry are low and they believe the game is clean and can be beaten.

If racing ever warmed up to idea of publicizing "Long term winners exist because racing is now the most attractive gambling game on the planet!" ...and if this were actually true because the game was priced correctly and barriers to entry were low and the game was regulated in a way that there were no questions about the game's integrity...

Which is exactly what I'm suggesting the industry do - you'd see racing undergo an upward explosion in new interest and handle too.


-jp

.

[Indulto]

What apparently isn’t obvious to some professional players is that the situation that enables them, collectively, to routinely separate the overwhelming majority of non-professionals from their limited bankrolls is also killing interest in the game as surely as the wrong-headed factions in control of racing that you criticize, but who are also enabling selective rebating.That line of thinking is just completely WRONG.

The professional player generating long term profits and growing a bank to astronomical size is doing what?

WINNING.

In ANY gambling game or financial endeavor the ONE thing that generates the greatest amount of new interest and brings in the most new money to a game is the general public discovering that WINNERS EXIST.

As evidence... It happened in the 60's with blackjack after Ed Thorp published Beat The Dealer. Why? Because he proved with statistical certainty that 21 was beatable. The masses that flooded into casinos to play 21 couldn't beat the game because they hadn't studied and practiced counting and playing hands correctly long or hard enough to become good at it. But that didn't matter. They flooded into casinos to play 21 because they now believed the game could be beaten. Blackjack revenue skyrocketed and 40 plus years later 21 is still one of the world's most popular games.

It's happened in the finanical markets many times over - and on a scale that dwarfs 21. Again, people jump into the market not because they have the singular ability to make winning trades - but because barriers to entry are low and they believe the game is clean and can be beaten.

If racing ever warmed up to idea of publicizing "Long term winners exist because racing is now the most attractive gambling game on the planet!" ...and if this were actually true because the game was priced correctly and barriers to entry were low and the game was regulated in a way that there were no questions about the game's integrity...

Which is exactly what I'm suggesting the industry do - you'd see racing undergo an upward explosion in new interest and handle too.You would be absolutely right if the “winners” to be idolized and publicized were not also subsidized. ;)

I agree that accumulating an astronomical bankroll through wagering on horses is an admirable accomplishment if achieved on a level playing field, but if such a player was being rebated while his competition was not, such a performance would provide little incentive for the unrebated masses to flood racetracks and OTBs.

[Imriledup]

You would be absolutely right if the “winners” to be idolized and publicized were not also subsidized. ;)

I agree that accumulating an astronomical bankroll through wagering on horses is an admirable accomplishment if achieved on a level playing field, but if such a player was being rebated while his competition was not, such a performance would provide little incentive for the unrebated masses to flood racetracks and OTBs.

If rebate players were not getting a rebate, they would be forced to lower their bets substantially, but they would still win. The rebate helps them maintain large wager sizes without 'winning their own money' sort of speak.

When you bet thousands of dollars to win on a horse, you depress that price to the point where its no longer smart to bet. But, if you get some of that 'depression' back, you could go ahead and bet a few grand if you want.

A 2 dollar bettor sticks 2 to win on a 3-1 shot and gets 8 bucks. A big bettor without a rebate, sticks 2 grand to win and gets 7.20. Why should one guy be able to get an 8 dollar price when the 'better customer' is forced to take 7.20?

The rebate makes it fair for that big player to continue to bet big.

[Indulto]

If rebate players were not getting a rebate, they would be forced to lower their bets substantially, but they would still win. The rebate helps them maintain large wager sizes without 'winning their own money' sort of speak.

When you bet thousands of dollars to win on a horse, you depress that price to the point where its no longer smart to bet. But, if you get some of that 'depression' back, you could go ahead and bet a few grand if you want.

A 2 dollar bettor sticks 2 to win on a 3-1 shot and gets 8 bucks. A big bettor without a rebate, sticks 2 grand to win and gets 7.20. Why should one guy be able to get an 8 dollar price when the 'better customer' is forced to take 7.20?

The rebate makes it fair for that big player to continue to bet big.IRU,
Are you speaking from experience?

You can't imagine how hard it is for me to imagine you betting thousands to win. :lol:

[cj]

In that case, we should go all out for the overall reduction. I doubt any progress will be made until someone can create a model relating purses, fieldsize, and handle which shows that a reasonable initial compromise could lead to a situation where benefits to all parties would increase as handle continued to improve.

I just don't see it happening. Why expend time and energy trying for something that is just impossible in today's climate? I'm reminded of Don Quixote fighting that damn windmill.

Change isn't going to happen in a day. Taking the step Jeff mentioned would be a giant step for bettors. It gives those that bet the chance to PROVE handle will increase with a takeout reduction. If it doesn't, there is little chance for an across the board cut. If it does, there is a very good chance it will happen.

[Imriledup]

IRU,
Are you speaking from experience?

You can't imagine how hard it is for me to imagine you betting thousands to win. :lol:

:)

[proximity]

I just don't see it happening. Why expend time and energy trying for something that is just impossible in today's climate? .

this is correct and beyond rebates we will someday soon be at the point where almost every track is receiving at least some kind of slots subsidy for purses.... and i think at some tracks this has already gone too far. HORSEMEN SHOULD NEED TO HAVE MORE OF AN INTEREST IN THE OVERALL HEALTH (POOL SIZES) OF THE GAME. ie. from the beginning, the pools.... not the purses directly.... should be receiving subsidies proportional to the final odds. not an original thought, but the game itself needs a shot in the arm. $2000 win pools as post time approaches just doesn't inspire action.....

[Indulto]

I just don't see it happening. Why expend time and energy trying for something that is just impossible in today's climate? I'm reminded of Don Quixote fighting that damn windmill.Dulcinea... Dulcinea... ;) Change isn't going to happen in a day. Taking the step Jeff mentioned would be a giant step for bettors. It gives those that bet the chance to PROVE handle will increase with a takeout reduction.It won't prove anything about the potential for increased contribution from recreational bettors while still keeping them out of the game.If it doesn't, there is little chance for an across the board cut. If it does, there is a very good chance it will happen.No, it would more likely reinforce their thinking that selective rebating is the best course for them.

I think jp, chick, and DT should consider meeting with horsemen like Steve Zorn and start building that model to get real change accomplished before racing tanks.

[Indulto]

If the rebate minimums were lowered from a million to a hundred thousand, who loses that incremental money that the player is getting? Is it the ADW that isn't paying the rebate now and would have to (or not be competitive)?Originall Posted by Jeff P
Great question. Here's how I see it:

First, understand the idea behind the suggestion is that NEW money is brought into the game by hitting demographics that racing has completely ignored:

1. The serious bettor who is already sold on racing but who bets less than $1 mil a year.

2. The serious bettor who shuns racing but bets in a serious way on other forms of gambling: sports, cards, slots, etc.

Who loses first?

Offshore non parimutuel books would lose as players began discovering that competitive pricing was available onshore.Also losing would be the 95+% of players responsible for 85% of handle who still wouldn’t qualify for such rebates since they would be placed at an even greater disadvantage as the number of selectively rebated players increased, which in turn would drive payoffs even lower.Who gains first?

Onshore ADWs that rebate would stand to gain.Are you sure about this? How likely is it that the rebates they could offer this "new" money could match what the offshores might offer them. (Why would they ignore this segment?). The most reasonable outcome to me appears to be increased business for the offshores and even greater dependence on them by the tracks.Seems to me it would be thePlayers who aren't betting serious money onshore now would be the ffirst to realize racing has become attractive to them as a gambling venture. As a result they would start to bet more and more. A percentage would be net winners long term - who would tell their friends about what they do and how they do it - creating a domino effect drawing new bettors into the game. I'm guessing quite a few would start talking about it on the internet - multiplying the domino effect.

Eventually serious bettors who aren't involved in racing at all would start to see racing as a favorable gambling venture.

Who loses once racing starts to be known as an attractive gamble?

Casinos, poker, and state lotteries would lose out as bettors started to realize racing was an attractive gambling game.

Who else gains long term?

Tracks would gain from this long term. Why? Because the domino effect is new money coming into the game. Tracks would be getting incremental new business - by doing nothing other than loosening the reigns a bit.I don’t think so. As more unrebated players are driven from the game, that less profitable “new” business could result in lower net yield to tracks.Horsemen would gain long term because some of the incremental new money flowing in would be allocated towards purses.

Likewise lower net contribution to purses.What stays the same?

On track business stays the same. The recreational bettors who play on track but who bet nowhere close to $100k a year would still go out to the track. …And you don’t see this as a problem? If takeout were lowered for all, more people would go to the track, including more occasional visits by the flood of new on-line/off-track players.

Also you didn’t mention that unrebated on-line and other off-track recreational bettors would also not increase in number unless they were able to combine as a single qualifying entity.

jp,
The problem with this approach is that you aren’t addressing the needs of the overwhelming majority of players without whom racing is going to tank. I’m afraid you are assuming that because they generally aren’t as vocal, proactive, or have a proportional on-line presence, that they aren’t deserving of your representation.

Going down the same path of the THG, which has appeared relatively ineffective in obtaining benefits for most horsemen, does not bode well for everybody involved.

http://www.jcapper.com/HANA/SignUp/HANASignUpForm.asp?source=0 (http://www.jcapper.com/HANA/SignUp/HANASignUpForm.asp?source=0)
HANA New Member Sign Up Form

Please understand something: At some point we are going to sit down at the table with track management and horsemen's groups and negotiate on your behalf. If nothing else we plan on making them painfully aware how their antics are hurting the game and alienating the customer. Having the names of real people in our member database serves two purposes. First, it gives us a way to keep you updated with our goals and progress towards those goals. Second, when we do sit down to negotiate, having real names puts us in a much better bargaining position than if we had a list composed of people's internet handles only. If you are a known personality on an internet message board you should know that submitting your real name and address will help us far more than submitting a handle such as PaceMaster7f ever will. Please: we are asking for real names only. ...When you finally get to the table, why risk being perceived as representing special interests and being distrusted by your partners in negotiation? If you are going to assume this responsibility, it will have to be for the benefit of huge numbers of people whose names you will never know, but who would owe you a tremendous debt of gratitude if you were successful on their behalf, and thus increasing the overall benefit to the "serious" players you actually communicate with because there would be more money in the pools for them to go after.

You have long advocated a win/win policy as the model for success. Not only must ALL horseplayers be winners in your vision, but also ALL horsemen. That is why purses are relevant to any discussions about takeout. The entities that would benefit from your failure to forge an alliance with horsemen are ADWs and possibly tracks who have purse funding alternatives. These are the biggest beneficiaries of high takeout that will bleed racing dry if the industry is allowed to continue favoring one group of horseplayers over another.

[slewis]

I cannot believe the crying Im reading about on this thread, and those that are crying the loudest should face reality and get out of the game if things bother you so much.

The article was about computerized betting, not rebates.
I understand that it's the rebates that allow the programer to be successful, but he has no "edge" on 99.5% of players with his ability to make many combo bets in x seconds.

I would love to prove my point with 100 of the biggest crybabies in and out of the industry.
I would even agree to let Hal "the fool" Handel send The Little Guy to surrogate my theory on his behalf.

Here's my proposal:

I'll put 100 random "complainers" in a room with access to "up to the second" odds in ALL the pools. No cell phone or internet access.
When the last horse loads into the gate, I'll shut the signal so the complainer cant see the race.
At this point I'll give the complainer ALL DAY to think about AS MANY COMBINATIONS OF PLAYS HE"D LIKE and let him make those bets... similarly (supposedly) to the "edge" the program players have.

When the complainers are comfy with their bets, I'll replay the race for them to see how they fared.
What does everyone think will happen? The marginal handicapper will now be a consistant winning player?:lol:
Will the good h'capper hit the forbes list of wealthiest Americans next year.:lol:

Those that constantly complain about rebaters should just move on or get out of playing the sport...case closed.

[cj]

They are getting out of the game. Why do you think the % of handle is going up among rebatees even though handle is declining greatly?

[slewis]

Im not aware of that stat CJ but it's (in my opinion) irrelevant.

Those that get out would be getting out regardless of anyone else getting a rebate or not.

The problem with an article like this in the racing form is that it gives the illusion to the leisure racegoer that there are really really smart people who use computer programs that they cant beat AND they have a HUGE edge.

If you didn't know how they work wouldn't you quit too??

Mr. Handel's statements foolishly and erroneously reinforce that illusion and dont help NYRA's or other racetracks quest's to infuse new blood into the game.

That's why I stated (and I was very serious) that the NYS appointed members of the NYRA board under this new restructuring, should force him to resign.

[Steve 'StatMan']

If rebate players were not getting a rebate, they would be forced to lower their bets substantially, but they would still win. The rebate helps them maintain large wager sizes without 'winning their own money' sort of speak.

When you bet thousands of dollars to win on a horse, you depress that price to the point where its no longer smart to bet. But, if you get some of that 'depression' back, you could go ahead and bet a few grand if you want.

A 2 dollar bettor sticks 2 to win on a 3-1 shot and gets 8 bucks. A big bettor without a rebate, sticks 2 grand to win and gets 7.20. Why should one guy be able to get an 8 dollar price when the 'better customer' is forced to take 7.20?

The rebate makes it fair for that big player to continue to bet big.

If the $2 bettor bets the 3/1 shot and the big bettor stayes out, he gets $8.00. If the big bettor also bets that same 3/1 shot, it now drops to 5/2, and both the big and small bettor only get $7.20 for every $2 wagered.

[Indulto]

I cannot believe the crying Im reading about on this thread, and those that are crying the loudest should face reality and get out of the game if things bother you so much.And let big-bankrolled loudmouths keep screwing up the most entertaining game on the planet? Not likely! ;) The article was about computerized betting, not rebates.

I understand that it's the rebates that allow the programer to be successful, but he has no "edge" on 99.5% of players with his ability to make many combo bets in x seconds.If you really understood that if it weren’t for SELECTIVE rebating on losing bets, there wouldn’t any opportunity for these teams to exploit, and we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. What happens when your computerized betting teams are playing us straight up with optimally low takeout for all?I would love to prove my point with 100 of the biggest crybabies in and out of the industry.

I would even agree to let Hal "the fool" Handel send The Little Guy to surrogate my theory on his behalf.

Here's my proposal:

I'll put 100 random "complainers" in a room with access to "up to the second" odds in ALL the pools. No cell phone or internet access.

When the last horse loads into the gate, I'll shut the signal so the complainer cant see the race.

At this point I'll give the complainer ALL DAY to think about AS MANY COMBINATIONS OF PLAYS HE"D LIKE and let him make those bets... similarly (supposedly) to the "edge" the program players have.

When the complainers are comfy with their bets, I'll replay the race for them to see how they fared.

What does everyone think will happen?Probably not what YOU think. The marginal handicapper will now be a consistant winning player? Subject to equal takeout, some will. Others will simply remain in the game longer.Will the good h'capper hit the forbes list of wealthiest Americans next year. If there are some now, there will also be some when level playing field conditions prevail.Those that constantly complain about rebaters should just move on or get out of playing the sport...case closed.Those that are making racing uncompetitive with other forms of gambling are the ones that should move on.

You want to exploit this opportunity to take a shot and Handel and NYRA, fine, but when you started squealing like a stuck pig when unfair restrictions were placed on the use of certain type of horse shoes, I don’t recall anybody yelling “crybaby.”

Wassamatter, are tears rolling down your cheeks now because somebody is challenging the privilege to exploit the system for personal gain by those who have more money to throw around than they know what to do with? :jump:

[goforgin]

Check the Mountain Race 8 last night. Looks about $200,000 to show. Not $20K, but $200K!

[Imriledup]

If the $2 bettor bets the 3/1 shot and the big bettor stayes out, he gets $8.00. If the big bettor also bets that same 3/1 shot, it now drops to 5/2, and both the big and small bettor only get $7.20 for every $2 wagered.

But than the small bettor is betting a 5-2 shot and not a 3-1 shot. Im talking about the small bettor and big bettor both betting 3-1 shots.

[slewis]

Indulto,

You want to have a personal go at me??

OK.... lets get to FACTS.

The shoe data I posted and the reasons I gave for the nationwide implimentation of that stupid rule were laughed upon by many on this forum.

Now that the truth is slowly surfacing, many people realize the "facts" I claimed really were "facts".

If you're perception of my input on this thread is just an excuse to take a "cheap shot" at NYRA management, we agree to disagree.

Handel was quoted that these teams have an UNFAIR EDGE.

My statement was that perceived edge is so small, it negatively effects less than one half of one percent of the players.

I gave an example of why Handel's statements were flawed.

You highlighted in your response to me that the results were "not what you (I) think.

I would challenge YOU personally to that in a second, without even knowing you or how you handicap. Brash? Not at all. It's that progm bettors do things very differently then the majority of the bettors in the pools.
You know this so why are you doubting me?

So I will repeat, is the program player immune to his horse getting left at the gate? At getting caught six wide on the turn? To getting blocked in mid-stretch????
The playing field IS FAIR enough, sorry you cant see that, and any inequalities are only restricted to the risk ANYONE of any race, color or creed can take with a large bankroll (IE rebate).

As far as your personal quest to rant to prevent those with a large bankroll from "ruining" the sport..... It falls on deaf ears.

NOT my ears, because I do understand your frustration (although I dont agree with it) but I appreciate your opinions on this forum.

MY POINT INDULTO is handle. Handle is THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect of racing. Especially in these times.
The State of N.Y. regulates and ALLOWS racing in the state for the good and pleasure of the taxpayers. Chasing handle away without solid reason violates that franchise agreement. Therefore:
When a manager of a STATE AWARDED franchise takes a position that will adversly effect the bottom line to taxpayers, It is my opinion that he should be removed.
Since Mr. Handel or Mr. Indulto have failed to show how programer guys have an "unfair edge", I, and many others will take a stand against those statements.
If you or Mr. Handel were to take me up on my experiment, you know I'd be correct. That random sample of 100 players would have the same ROI whether they bet with 5 minutes to post or had the ability to make 1000 bets 1 second before the gate opens.
If you or Mr. Handel can prove otherwise, (Like I factually disproved the shoe-injury nonsense the Jockey Club fabricated) I'll listen and applaude.

[Indulto]

Indulto,

You want to have a personal go at me??slewis,

I’m always willing to have a personal go with anybody … well, maybe not PA. ;)

You made it personal when you characterized my comments as the complaints of a crybaby, but it doesn’t have to get unfriendly.OK.... lets get to FACTS.

The shoe data I posted and the reasons I gave for the nationwide implimentation of that stupid rule were laughed upon by many on this forum.

Now that the truth is slowly surfacing, many people realize the "facts" I claimed really were "facts".I never doubted you about that for a minute, but your anecdotal evidence there was also stronger than it is in this thread.If you're perception of my input on this thread is just an excuse to take a "cheap shot" at NYRA management, we agree to disagree.Cheap shots are fine with me in any direction.:jump: Handel was quoted that these teams have an UNFAIR EDGE.

My statement was that perceived edge is so small, it negatively effects less than one half of one percent of the players.

I gave an example of why Handel's statements were flawed.

You highlighted in your response to me that the results were "not what you (I) think.

I would challenge YOU personally to that in a second, without even knowing you or how you handicap. Brash? Not at all. It's that progm bettors do things very differently then the majority of the bettors in the pools.
You know this so why are you doubting me?Yes, the computer program is playing a different game. (as are rebated players, generally). We are handicapping the horses, trying to select winners and winning combinations. The computer (in this case) is handicapping the players via their wagers; determining value for their own wagers in a manner and timeframe beyond the capability of the human bettor.

When people like me ask why should these groups be allowed this last-second look to bet after we’ve already turned over our cards, so to speak, with the ability to add strategic amounts to the pool, people like you say it’s because we’re willing to bet a huge amount based on that look.

Just because something can be done, doesn’t mean it should be done.So I will repeat, is the program player immune to his horse getting left at the gate? At getting caught six wide on the turn? To getting blocked in mid-stretch????
The playing field IS FAIR enough, sorry you cant see that, and any inequalities are only restricted to the risk ANYONE of any race, color or creed can take with a large bankroll (IE rebate).I have no objections to competing against large bankrolls, only to the lower effective takeout they are subjected to which enables some of them to be profitable with the depressed payoffs they cause who would otherwise not be, and others to purchase exotic wager combinations at lower cost.As far as your personal quest to rant to prevent those with a large bankroll from "ruining" the sport..... It falls on deaf ears. NOT my ears, because I do understand your frustration (although I dont agree with it) but I appreciate your opinions on this forum.I’ve found that it depends on when and where they fall.MY POINT INDULTO is handle. Handle is THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect of racing. Especially in these times.Yes it is. And even we probably can agree that lower takeout for all would improve handle, but this is not one of NYRA’s management tools.The State of N.Y. regulates and ALLOWS racing in the state for the good and pleasure of the taxpayers. Chasing handle away without solid reason violates that franchise agreement. Therefore:
When a manager of a STATE AWARDED franchise takes a position that will adversly effect the bottom line to taxpayers, It is my opinion that he should be removed.Apparently Mr. Handel and NYRA have reason to believe that such low-net-yield new handle would be offset by the loss of some existing higher-net-yield handle. Apparently the ability to exlude them at their discretion is one of their tools. I doubt either of us knows the whole story.Since Mr. Handel or Mr. Indulto have failed to show how programer guys have an "unfair edge", I, and many others will take a stand against those statements. As is your right, but you have no authority to establish who has the burden of proof, and it isn't clear that your proposal would satisfy it.If you or Mr. Handel were to take me up on my experiment, you know I'd be correct. That random sample of 100 players would have the same ROI whether they bet with 5 minutes to post or had the ability to make 1000 bets 1 second before the gate opens.
If you or Mr. Handel can prove otherwise, (Like I factually disproved the shoe-injury nonsense the Jockey Club fabricated) I'll listen and applaude.I’d like to see NYRA poll its customers on the issue. This voucher giveaway might have been a good opportunity to get a questionnaire completed by many of them.

[formula_2002]

I think the game would be more interesting for the bettor if, during the course of betting, pari-mutual betting pools would open and close say three times before the start of the race.
A horse could be running at several different pari-mutual odds in the same race.
Taking is a bit further, there could be par-imutual pools where a bettor could make an exacta bet on say the 1 horse in the 1st pool with the 2 horse in the second pool.
This could open play for more proposition bets than a crap table :)

[Imriledup]

I think the game would be more interesting for the bettor if, during the course of betting, pari-mutual betting pools would open and close say three times before the start of the race.
A horse could be running at several different pari-mutual odds in the same race.
Taking is a bit further, there could be par-imutual pools where a bettor could make an exacta bet on say the 1 horse in the 1st pool with the 2 horse in the second pool.
This could open play for more proposition bets than a crap table :)

I like the concept of 2 pools per race. Also, you can have 2 pools, one that closes 1 MTP and one that stays open...that way, anyone who's crying about late odds changes can get into the early closing pool.

[Jeff P]

Yes, the computer program is playing a different game. (as are rebated players, generally). We are handicapping the horses, trying to select winners and winning combinations. The computer (in this case) is handicapping the players via their wagers; determining value for their own wagers in a manner and timeframe beyond the capability of the human bettor.

When people like me ask why should these groups be allowed this last-second look to bet after we’ve already turned over our cards, so to speak, with the ability to add strategic amounts to the pool, people like you say it’s because we’re willing to bet a huge amount based on that look.Again, computer players are not being given access to anything the recreational player doesn't have access to.

Does the computer player have access to some special super fast high speed tote feed?

Umm... no. Everybody has the same tote feed that you see. Hint: It isn't in real time.

Think computer players have an UNFAIR edge because they are handicapping the crowd?

Then why not handicap the crowd yourself?

Innovate. Create an app of your own that parses the odds - or even exacta, and double payoffs. And then develop models that identify overlaid horses or individual exacta and double combinations. Want to take it further? Use current odds and exacta payoffs to auto generate wagers on individual trifecta and superfecta combinations that are theoretical overlays according to your models. Notice I used the word theoretical in that last sentence?


What about wager submission?

ALL players absolutely DO have the ability to upload multiple wagers in a text file to a server - and have the server parse the file and return a confirmation that the file was accepted. Several domestic ADWs currently offer this - and more will probably offer it going forward. Want to do that? Then develop your own app that writes your wagers to a text file in the correct format. It's not rocket science.

My point is that computer teams win because they work hard and they innovate. The ONLY thing stopping the individual player from doing the same is the player himself.


-jp

.

[castaway01]

Jeff, all the diversions and side arguments in this thread aside, you have the right idea about the game and how to fix/improve it. It's a long road, but stay positive.

[Indulto]

Again, computer players are not being given access to anything the recreational player doesn't have access to.

Does the computer player have access to some special super fast high speed tote feed?

Umm... no. Everybody has the same tote feed that you see. Hint: It isn't in real time.

Think computer players have an UNFAIR edge because they are handicapping the crowd?

Then why not handicap the crowd yourself?Yes, that is another thing human players do … they look for value. I should have made it clearer that I’m not opposed to “conditional wagering” per se on any level, but not when it involves selective rebating based on wager volume.Innovate. Create an app of your own that parses the odds - or even exacta, and double payoffs. And then develop models that identify overlaid horses or individual exacta and double combinations. Want to take it further? Use current odds and exacta payoffs to auto generate wagers on individual trifecta and superfecta combinations that are theoretical overlays according to your models. Notice I used the word theoretical in that last sentence?Like anything else, innovation isn’t always a positive thing. Consider mortgage-based securities, and their effects.

It does appear that innovations brought about in Hong Kong eventually led to huge handle. I don’t know whether rebates, computer teams, and/or the two combined are sanctioned there. Do you? Do you also happen to know what % of handle there is generated by rebated players and by computer teams? Are there any pools there that computer teams are restricted from?

Maybe there should be some pools introduced that can only be played by computer, e.g., picking the winning combination in each of 3 consecutive trifectas -- a place, where you “innovative” fortune accumulators can duke it out and leave us old recreational betting sport fans to our beloved pastime. At this point, I might settle for 15% blended takeout with rebating being suspended on weekends and holidays. You did say you’d be OK with a steady diet of low-level claimers, right? ;)

Do you have an opinon regarding the suggestion made in one of the comments to the new Pope article at the Paulick Report that direct takeout be lowered in stages within individual pools when handle reaches specified levels?What about wager submission?

ALL players absolutely DO have the ability to upload multiple wagers in a text file to a server - and have the server parse the file and return a confirmation that the file was accepted. Several domestic ADWs currently offer this - and more will probably offer it going forward. Want to do that? Then develop your own app that writes your wagers to a text file in the correct format. It's not rocket science.

My point is that computer teams win because they work hard and they innovate. The ONLY thing stopping the individual player from doing the same is the player himself. …If you’re determined to make a character issue out of this, let me ask you how is it that all this hard work of yours has been focused on beating a game that relatively few people take seriously and is meaningless to most people in the civilized world? What are you achieving beyond expanding the wealth of the rebate shop owners you patronize? Are they working as hard as you are? What fraction of their earnings does yours match?

You might ask yourself some day if your role in maintaining selective rebating helped destroy an entire pastime that many people once enjoyed and others will never have the opportunity to experience.

[Jeff P]

You might ask yourself some day if your role in maintaining selective rebating helped destroy an entire pastime that many people once enjoyed and others will never have the opportunity to experience.Let's see, right now we have track signal fees that keep climbing, 22% blended takeout, industry leaders who think it's ok for the odds to change after the gate opens, tracks that allow people to cancel wagers after the gate opens, pools that fail to close and merge 8-10 times a year, regulators who give trainers a slap on the wrist for their Xth career drug positive, fields that keep shrinking and a product that becomes noticeably less and less bettable with each passing day...

The result?

Almost zero public confidence in the integrity of the game and handle numbers that keep shrinking.


This piece describes the big picture much better than I can ever do it myself:
http://pullthepocket.blogspot.com/2009/09/seats-at-table.html


And somehow in I'M the one destroying the game?


-jp

.

[Jeff P]

Jeff, all the diversions and side arguments in this thread aside, you have the right idea about the game and how to fix/improve it. It's a long road, but stay positive.
Thanks for that. Despite what you might read in some of these threads I think we have the ability to make some headway.

-jp

.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Indulto, I understand the point about rebates, and unfair advantage (for those who do not take advantage of betting through a rebate shop). But I'm pretty sure that the only way the industry will change and adopt a lower takeout philosophy is when the bulk of bettors do the majority of their wagering at rebate shops.

I'll say that if rebate shops went bye bye tomorrow, handle would drop noticeably and takeouts will only go higher. They will have no chance of going to down.

If everyone bet through rebate shops only tomorrow, takeout would most probably drop drastically in order to get players from playing at rebate shops. But then again, if everyone bet through rebate shops, it wouldn't matter to bettors if takeout was reduced.

[Indulto]

You might ask yourself some day if your role in maintaining selective rebating helped destroy an entire pastime that many people once enjoyed and others will never have the opportunity to experience.Let's see, right now we have track signal fees that keep climbing, 22% blended takeout, industry leaders who think it's ok for the odds to change after the gate opens, tracks that allow people to cancel wagers after the gate opens, pools that fail to close and merge 8-10 times a year, regulators who give trainers a slap on the wrist for their Xth career drug positive, fields that keep shrinking and a product that becomes noticeably less and less bettable with each passing day...

The result?

Almost zero public confidence in the integrity of the game and handle numbers that keep shrinking.All you just said is true as far as I can tell.This piece describes the big picture much better than I can ever do it myself:
http://pullthepocket.blogspot.com/2...s-at-table.html (http://pullthepocket.blogspot.com/2009/09/seats-at-table.html)

Yes, an excellent piece by DT as was his comment as PTP to Pope's article at the Paulick Report. Apparently the energizer bunny has had an opportunity to recharge his batteries and is back at full literary effectiveness. ;) And somehow in I'M the one destroying the game?Not all by yourself. :lol:

However …

It is YOU who has assumed/accepted the visible leadership role of a horseplayers’ group founded largely on principles YOU originally articulated in your inspirational mantra about “why the game is broken.”

In your impassioned call for lower takeout to increase handle and for players to be treated with greater respect, you didn’t bother to mention that some players already have these problems addressed for them through a process of selective rebating based on wager volume; a process which you endorse.

You made no distinction about qualifying bankroll sizes when you asked players to join you to give then a stronger voice within the industry; ostensibly for their collective benefit.

You never (to my knowledge) acknowledge that unrebated players – regardless of skill level – don’t have an equal opportunity to become profitable when betting into the same pools as rebated players because the latter nets more on winning wagers of equal size, and gets a return even on losing wagers.

And now YOU propose to extend the number of rebated players to increase the disadvantage to 95% of all horse race bettors, very likely driving many more out of the game than would be “returned” to the “pari-mutuel pools.”

If somebody sits down at the table in DT’s scenario to represent players, they had better represent ALL players and work for lower and equal effective and/or direct takeout on all bettors. Until that is the primary objective, HANA is a four-letter word. :bang: Perhaps five would be more fitting, e.g., SHANA (Serious Horseplayers’ …) or PHANA (Professional Horseplayers’ …). :jump:

So if you indeed follow up and make headway in getting the level of qualifying rebates lowered for another select few, some might wonder whether that was your agenda all along.

[Indulto]

Indulto, I understand the point about rebates, and unfair advantage (for those who do not take advantage of betting through a rebate shop).Cannot would be more accurate, but players with inferior rebates can't compete with whales either. It would be better to have equal takeout effectively and/or directly for all.But I'm pretty sure that the only way the industry will change and adopt a lower takeout philosophy is when the bulk of bettors do the majority of their wagering at rebate shops.Like yours? Don't you have a vested interest here?I'll say that if rebate shops went bye bye tomorrow, handle would drop noticeably and takeouts will only go higher. They will have no chance of going to down.

If everyone bet through rebate shops only tomorrow, takeout would most probably drop drastically in order to get players from playing at rebate shops. But then again, if everyone bet through rebate shops, it wouldn't matter to bettors if takeout was reduced.You had a good response to the commenter dismissing the idea of 10% takeout at the Paulick report. :ThmbUp:

[Jeff P]

Indulto,

Do you work for a racetrack? If not, do you hold a position on the board of a horsemen's group such as the TOC or THG?

I ask because you're saying the some of the same things about me and HANA some of those people do.

Just so you know, I did the HANA site. And right on the home page of the site under Takeout you'll find the following:

We believe 9 or 10 percent takeout every pool - every track - every race - every day - marketed in the right way as the greatest gambling game on the planet will create an upward explosion in handle and generate new massive interest about the game...

Those words are my words. I wrote them myself and I typed them into the html of the site myself. They wouldn't be there if I didn't believe in them.

That said, In my opinion if takeout is to be lowered it isn't going to happen all at once.

Given the big picture of the game right now - rebates are the easiest best path to reduced effective takeout there is. For the player who wants significantly better pricing it's either rebates or play outside the parimutuel system - or maybe take up golf.

The article (and the title of this thread) (and every economic study that I have ever read) shows that players support rebates. And like others have said, if enough players had access to them, the industry would have no choice but to lower takeout in a significant way.

And that is exactly why I will keep pushing to make them available to anybody that wants them.


-jp

.

[classhandicapper]

I have a few comments.

1. The supply side view of this is generally misunderstood.

Lowering the track take will increase the handle, but not necessarily the profit for the track/government. They could easily wind up getting a smaller percentage of a bigger pie for a net of zero. The only way to increase the profit (and purses etc..) is to actually increase the gambling pie, not just the turnover of the same pie.

That means attracting new players to racing or getting existing players to allocate more of their money towards horse racing rather than other forms of entertainment. The latter gets tricky though. If lottery, casino and other gamblers switch to horse racing, that may be good for horse racing, but not necessarily for government revenues because the government gets a huge piece of the lottery handle relative to horse racing handle and also collects licensing and taxes on casino profits. This is not the "no brainer" everyone thinks. You have to increase the gambling pie to make government happy and not just switch it from one area to another.

2. IMHO, using casinos to save horse racing may be one of the all time dumbest economic moves I could imagine. Nowhere in business do intelligent allocators of capital look at a poor business (like most tracks) and say, "Let's start a good business (casino betting) to subsidize our shitty business (horse racing)". They close or sell their shitty business and reallocate the capital to a good business. What we should be doing is allowing all the shitty tracks to close and then allowing the bettors to bet elsewhere in the country. Most of the handle would simply migrate to the best run tracks and make them more profitable. Once they became super profitable (and they would because some of their costs are fixed), then we could easily talk about changes.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

"Like yours? Don't you have a vested interest here?"
**************************
I still state the best possible thing the industry could do tomorrow is drop takeout to 10% on every bet. That could put Horseplayersbet out of business, but it isn't very likely. It isn't very likely that one racetrack will reduce all wagers to 16% tomorrow either.


Lowering the track take will increase the handle, but not necessarily the profit for the track/government. They could easily wind up getting a smaller percentage of a bigger pie for a net of zero. The only way to increase the profit (and purses etc..) is to actually increase the gambling pie, not just the turnover of the same pie.
***************************
Excellent point, but lowering take out will get players to last longer, play more, and cause family members and friends to get involved as well. Lowering takeout will also likely cause the gambler to devote most of his or her gambling money to racing. Most will still lose, probably more than before, but they will last longer so it just won't feel like it. Plus there would be a realistic carrot dangling to actually win long term if one is good and lucky enough.

[Jeff P]

Class, I absolutely and emphatically agree with your point.

Takeout and handle have an elastic relationship. Set takeout to 100% and handle dries up and becomes zero overnight. Set takeout to 0% and takeout explodes upward but revenue for tracks, purses, and state coffers becomes zero overnight.

Somewhere in between 100% takeout and 0% percent takeout is the optimal price for takeout - the point where takeout is low enough to drive handle upwards to produce max revenue for tracks, purses and state coffers.

I don't know what the exact number is. But I CAN tell you that I will keep pushing the industry to find a way achieve the optimal price for takeout. I also respectfully submit to everybody reading that the optimal price for takeout is a LOT closer to 10% than the current 22% blended takeout we have now.



-jp

.

[Imriledup]

The biggest problem that bettors in horse racing face is that they are responsible for supplementing the cost of race horse ownership. The bettors are the ones paying for feed, care, stall rent, oats, hay and whatnut.

In the NFL, bettors are not paying the salaries of the players. Not a single penny from legal or illegal gambling on NFL games goes to supplement the players or the owners of the teams.

[DJofSD]

OBTW, there was this little snippet as a column filler in the LAT 9/2/2009:

INTERNET

Federal ban on gambling upheld

A federal appeals court upheld a 2006 federal ban on online gambling, denying a challenge by a group of offshore bookmakers who said the prohibition was too vague and violated privacy rights.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia rejected arguments from the Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Assn. in New Jersey, which had filed the lawsuit hoping to legalize online betting in that state.

The association is considering an appeal.

[Indulto]

Indulto,

Do you work for a racetrack? If not, do you hold a position on the board of a horsemen's group such as the TOC or THG?

I ask because you're saying the some of the same things about me and HANA some of those people do.:lol:

Thanks for the chuckle. It would be interesting to know where my interests overlap with TOC/THG board members. What does it tell you when people of such diverse interests and orientation are viewing you in a similar light? ;)

But your story doesn't jive with the fact that those groups support rebates for whales.

[Jeff P]

What does it tell you when people of such diverse interests and orientation are viewing you in a similar light?
It tells me I'm on the right track.



-jp

.

[Indulto]

It tells me I'm on the right track.I think it suggests a narrow self-interest.

[DeanT]

Jeff and Indulto on a Holiday Trip

JP: It's a nice day today
Indy: It would be nicer if there were no whales

JP: What should we do today pal?
Indy: Anything but the track, there are whales there

JP: Want to go out for lunch? I know a great fish and chip place
Indy: No. Although they are technically a mammal, fish reminds me of whales.

JP: I got a coupon here and it gives us two percent off at Appleby's. Wanna go?
Indy: Are you kidding me? That 2% off raises the price of a pound of wings and a draft for the people beside us by 1.3 cents. We are stealing from those people and crippling the chicken wing and hop industries. You bastard.

JP: OK, how bout we just stay in and watch a show that has nothing to do with fishing, discounts or large mammals.
Indy: Whatever, you do what you want. I am going online to bug Cary Fotias now.

JP: Bye Indy
Indy: Bye Jeff

[Indulto]

Jeff and Indulto on a Holiday Trip

JP: It's a nice day today
Indy: It would be nicer if there were no whales

JP: What should we do today pal?
Indy: Anything but the track, there are whales there

JP: Want to go out for lunch? I know a great fish and chip place
Indy: No. Although they are technically a mammal, fish reminds me of whales.

JP: I got a coupon here and it gives us two percent off at Appleby's. Wanna go?
Indy: Are you kidding me? That 2% off raises the price of a pound of wings and a draft for the people beside us by 1.3 cents. We are stealing from those people and crippling the chicken wing and hop industries. You bastard.

JP: OK, how bout we just stay in and watch a show that has nothing to do with fishing, discounts or large mammals.
Indy: Whatever, you do what you want. I am going online to bug Cary Fotias now.

JP: Bye Indy
Indy: Bye JeffBravo, Dean.

And thanks for the link to the Fotias interview. How come Cary's priorities don't seem to match JP's? I'd love to hear a real discussion between those two, but I'd bet your version would be just as entertaining.

[DJofSD]

Jeff and Indulto on a Holiday Trip

JP: It's a nice day today
Indy: It would be nicer if there were no whales

JP: What should we do today pal?
Indy: Anything but the track, there are whales there

JP: Want to go out for lunch? I know a great fish and chip place
Indy: No. Although they are technically a mammal, fish reminds me of whales.

JP: I got a coupon here and it gives us two percent off at Appleby's. Wanna go?
Indy: Are you kidding me? That 2% off raises the price of a pound of wings and a draft for the people beside us by 1.3 cents. We are stealing from those people and crippling the chicken wing and hop industries. You bastard.

JP: OK, how bout we just stay in and watch a show that has nothing to do with fishing, discounts or large mammals.
Indy: Whatever, you do what you want. I am going online to bug Cary Fotias now.

JP: Bye Indy
Indy: Bye Jeff
Priceless.

Keep it up and Mary will interview you!

[Pace Cap'n]

OBTW, there was this little snippet as a column filler in the LAT 9/2/2009:

There is no federal ban on online gambling.

[Indulto]

There once was a blogger from Toronto
Who posted relevant racing news pronto
Scores of websites an hour
He would dutifully scour
As the rebated horseplayer’s Tonto

No bankroll is too small he’d say
That can’t get larger through rebates today
But in order to get ‘em
You’ve first got to bet ‘em
At an elevated level of play

If one blog is good, two must be better
So a second was started with fellow bettors
But a promise to all for lower takeout
For those without rebates was just a fakeout
Contradicting an advisory man of letters.

Whose share of the pie
Is really too high?
It’s that of the rebated whale
which is making the system fail
And that’s where the answers lie.

The real winning owners in our sport
Are rebate shop owners who in short
Skim money from purses
And bettors without nurses
To keep their bankrolls on life-support

The compromise needed is one
That initially gives ten percent to none
But reduces direct takeout for all
To stop racing handle’s free-fall
And lowers takeout further when that’s done

[ezrabrooks]

Jeff and Indulto on a Holiday Trip

JP: It's a nice day today
Indy: It would be nicer if there were no whales

JP: What should we do today pal?
Indy: Anything but the track, there are whales there

JP: Want to go out for lunch? I know a great fish and chip place
Indy: No. Although they are technically a mammal, fish reminds me of whales.

JP: I got a coupon here and it gives us two percent off at Appleby's. Wanna go?
Indy: Are you kidding me? That 2% off raises the price of a pound of wings and a draft for the people beside us by 1.3 cents. We are stealing from those people and crippling the chicken wing and hop industries. You bastard.

JP: OK, how bout we just stay in and watch a show that has nothing to do with fishing, discounts or large mammals.
Indy: Whatever, you do what you want. I am going online to bug Cary Fotias now.

JP: Bye Indy
Indy: Bye Jeff

JP: I got a coupon here and it gives us two percent off at Appleby's. Wanna go?
Indy: Are you kidding me? That 2% off raises the price of a pound of wings and a draft for the people beside us by 1.3 cents. We are stealing from those people and crippling the chicken wing and hop industries. You bastard.

When you come up with that pari-mutual Appleby's...I will concede that as being clever...until then, try to come with a better friggen example.. Jezz...you are beginning to be a one trick pony.

EZ

[andymays]

keep punching!

We need a good one! :cool: :ThmbUp:

By the way where are the Chicks that walk around between rounds?


:jump: No, not that kind of chick.

[Indulto]

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/horse_racing/nyra_gets_boost_from_spa_take_nzrAqAvZdgNAasZxcu86 zN (http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/horse_racing/nyra_gets_boost_from_spa_take_nzrAqAvZdgNAasZxcu86 zN)
NYRA gets boost from Spa's take
By ED FOUNTAINE September 8, 2009… The numbers would likely have been higher except that on Travers Day, when the handle was down 18 percent, many bettors were unable to access the NYRA Rewards Internet betting site.

Yesterday, Hayward revealed the probable cause. Apparently, the site was targeted by hackers who bombarded it with log-ons, preventing NYRA's customers from accessing their accounts. NYRA is still investigating, but the suspected culprits are off-shore betting outlets that NYRA does not accept wagers from, which have the capability of sending in large, last-minute bets by computer. …

[DJofSD]

It's called a DOS attack -- denial of service.

[GameTheory]

DOS attacks are often targeted at gambling sites on big days, not hired by the competition, but simply for extortion -- "pay us or you won't be able to take bets on your big day". If there was no threat of extortion, maybe it was the competition, or it was a show of power to set-up a credible extortion threat for a future big day.

[Indulto]

Isn't this where the TRPB is supposed to find the bad guys?

C'mon Da Facts and company, get us some answers.

[senortout]

I looked for a thread like this one to post to. Although I am not as worried as some here about late odds changes, I thought it would be helpful to post an excerpt from that famous pick 6 incident of several years back..and some of the reasons for odds delays...follows...

"The 2020 Committee also has undertaken a review of wagering sites requiring a “double jump.” A “double jump” is a totalisator term for a wagering site with a core tote system (i.e., one taking wagers from
one or more sites) that connects to another core tote system before transmitting data to a host track. Doublejump sites can extend the time delay for pool odds calculations by up to 45 seconds. Under the current tote
framework, bandwidth issues may delay the implementation of this proposed change."

and the link for the complete article:
http://www.ntra.com/content/WTWG_final_report.pdf

[DJofSD]

I looked for a thread like this one to post to. Although I am not as worried as some here about late odds changes, I thought it would be helpful to post an excerpt from that famous pick 6 incident of several years back..and some of the reasons for odds delays...follows...

"The 2020 Committee also has undertaken a review of wagering sites requiring a “double jump.” A “double jump” is a totalisator term for a wagering site with a core tote system (i.e., one taking wagers from
one or more sites) that connects to another core tote system before transmitting data to a host track. Doublejump sites can extend the time delay for pool odds calculations by up to 45 seconds. Under the current tote
framework, bandwidth issues may delay the implementation of this proposed change."

and the link for the complete article:
http://www.ntra.com/content/WTWG_final_report.pdf
In the IT industry, this is referred to as store and forward. Sometimes it has its pluses but in general it is not the way to go.

[WinterTriangle]

Horseracing is not a science like chess where every move can be mathematically calculated by a computer. Handicapping is an art. The infinite consequences of the action of the blood and guts participants can never be fully accounted for by a computer.

:ThmbUp:

Would make for a great tournament. Computer versus savvy handicappers.