two question for everyone....

[superfecta]

While browsing the posts I came up with two questions
First,does takeout really affect the tracks you wager?
If so, why?
Second,do you use exotic betting as the basis of profitable wagering or do you believe straight betting is the way to consistent profit?
Which is most alluring to you when it comes to exotic betting?(pix 6,exacta,tri,super or others)

I concentrate on tris and supers,making small bets
($6-10) on these wagers,betting small to win big.
I pay no attention to takeout,I pay attention to payouts.
It suprises me how a exacta can pay 15- 20 bucks and the tri pays 100- 200,and the super pays in the thousands,all in the same race.
I can only explain this by the wagering public being uninformed about the tri and super.
Most books on handicapping say these are sucker bets,so I guess that has left a void in making wise wagers on these types of bets.
Only place I have seen consistent lousy payoffs -Calder.Non ending stream of 30- 50 dollar tris.

[GR1@HTR]

Regarding Takeout?

Yes, I refused to play Tri's at Hia last meet. What was the take out? Something like 29%...Say for example, you hit an IRS tri...Not only do you get zapped for 28% to 40% to IRS then almost 1/3 of your winnings from the lovely HIA. TO HECK WITH THAT!!!
Plus I want to support the SAR, PRM, PIM (P4) where the track is trying to reward us for participation. Hopefully we as a group and show that by the track lowering the take we can make it worth their while...

Regarding Exotic Bets.
The P4 is the king of all wagers...

[tanda]

Well, you say you only pay attention to payouts, not takeout. That is a logical impossibility since takeout directly impacts payout. I only win wager at tracks with 17% or less takeout on win wagers. I have limits for other types of bets as well. As to why I do that, it is because lower takeout does lead to lower payout. A lessor reason is to reward lower takeout tracks with my business and withhold from others. I do not consider 17% low by any means, it is just a maximum I have set.

I love that Hawthorne and NYRA handle is up with lower take and that PrM took notice.

I am a player who establishes minimum odds on all plays. The effect of a higher take is that I get fewer plays at high take tracks due to lower odds and when I do get plays, they pay less. Let's say I have a 20% edge built into my odds. Even though by being disciplined I can get fair odds at high take tracks (albeit less often), my edge is still lower tahn it would be at a lower take. So, you get fewer plays and the plays you get, while still advantageous, are not as advantageous as they otherwise would be. An example, instaed of three plays at 3.50 when I require 3.00, I might get on two plays at 3.40. I still have an edge, but less profitable and less margin for error. Thus, I would rather put my efforts into another track.

Also, the hurdle we must overcome is take plus breakage. The take raises the hurdle. Therefore, the take is fundamental to a player's bottomline. It's easir to beat the crowd nby 37% to make a 20% profit then having to beat by 40% to make a 20% profit.

re: takeout

The only way the racing fan can send a message to racing management and racing commissions is to boycott tracks with high takeouts and wager at tracks with lower takeouts. With simulcsting this is eay to do and if everyone would start thinking and wagering this way even the most slow witted of those in charge of t-bred racing would get the message.

re: payoff
IMO the pay off of exotics is directly related to field size and the number of favs that finish in the money. I try to avoid races with small fields and a couple of very strong looking low odds runners as the payoffs are not worth the risk.

[Tom]

I am sure that if enough horseplayers ever got united on some issue, they could make a statment that a track would listen to. Problem is trying to get a bunch of horseplayers to agree on anything. By our very nature, we are all "enemies" so to speak. And just read a few threads on this board if you doubt we are opinionated.
I don' think we could get a room full of us to agree to get out of a burning building. Last year, I boycotted the Breeders Cup races. I can't remember why, but I was pretty mad at the time. Anyhow, I still haven't been contacted by them to find out why I didn't bet. Go figure.
Tom

Well I don't know Tom it might still work. I boycotted all of the TVG tracks would not bet them becasue they were not on line at UBET....and looked what happend they are now partnering so that they can get my wagers.

They haven't got back to me yet either, but I figure they are to busy getting the software to work:-)

[ceejay]

Superfecta:

You say that you concentrate on payoffs (and, I'd presme risk vs. reward). How do you ideintify this in the Tri and Super pools as the pre-race payoffs are not posted? Is it just experience at a given track?

One reason that I avoid Supers is that at many tracks (Like Remington or, worse yet BRD where the Super can be 1-all-all-all) there is often only one super winner so yes, you can win the whole pool but may not be getitng fair value. the second reason that I don't play super's is that I have trouble picking horses to come in fourth place!

I do try to grind out in the straight pools with about 1/2 of my action. Take out influences this indirectly because high takeouts (obviously) reduce odds an all entries. My exotic action is mostly exactas and for "home runs" P3's.

Regards,
ceejay

PS- Is that "hot dog stand" the "Superfecta" stand on the south end?

[andicap]

Originally posted by Tom
I Anyhow, I still haven't been contacted by them to find out why I didn't bet. Go figure.
Tom

How did they ever live without your $2? :)


It's ironic, racing fans are just like racetracks -- real fragmented, can never work together. Sports fans in general are never willing to make sacrifices to achieve a goal. If they were they would boycott watching sports on cable TV to protest the exorbitant fees that cable companies must pay to the networks because the networks have to pay the teams because the players are making too much damn money.
Horseplayers are the same way -- they're selfish and self-centered.

[Rick Ransom]

Does anyone know if Saratoga handle is up from last year? I'm giving them my action and hope a lot of others do just on general principles.

[tanda]

Yes, Rick, it is up. Just as Hawthorne's was after the cut.

However, Hialeah and Turfway continue their high takes. I guess their management has no interest in learning from Hawthorne and NYRA. They must enjoy closing, defaulting and cutting purses. After all, it is not as if making money should be important to these guys.

Long live Reagan and supply-siders. Their ideas work with track take just as it does with income tax rates.

Liberals and track managers by and large just cannot realize that, at some levels, higher rates lead to less revenue.

[Rick Ransom]

tanda,

That's good news. Say, your real name isn't Jack Kemp is it?

[John]

Hey Guys
How about my local track ROCKINGHAM, Its the highest of all. almost 20%win, place and show and close to 27% on the ex and tri . The best bet pick-3 only one a day.Why ? May be its because they can take more on separate races.I go there to bet Saratoga and have people give me local horses. I know if I win I am still getting the worst of it.

[tanda]

Rick,

Nah. Kemp is too damn liberal for me.

I appreciate the honest answers.

When I say I pay no attention to takeout,I look for payouts,I am doing so because I do not know what the payoff will be. I look at a particular track that has good average payoffs and bet them.It doesn't make sense to win a trifecta or superfecta at a track that pays around $200 with takeout at 15% and ignore a track that pays $200 with 25% take.
Logic would say "well the lower take should raise the payoffs,"but that may not be the case.Since we don't know how much it pays,it would be smart to only play races we have a good idea about,and then only if the contenders we have are not all favorites.
I realize many think trying to tag that 3rd and 4th horse is impossible,but I think if you can visualize the race with good speed or pace numbers ,you can come up with logical scenerios on how the race will go.

PS- ceejay the hodog stand I am talking about is on the north end where the little old Indian woman usually works.I usually sit in front of those TVs at one of the picnic tables they have set up inside now.Bunch of the regulars set up shop around this area.

[Rick Ransom]

My local track, Turf Paradise, has one of the highest takeouts around (20%), but it also has weak competition with so many tourists and part-time players. So, it's still one of my most profitable tracks anyway. I wouldn't accept that kind of takeout at a major track though.

[Tom]

A high takeout affects the odds of each horse, but since we all see the odds beffore we bet, isn't that good enough to know if the bet is worth it?
You know what the payoff will be so wha tis the point of avoiding a take off, other than you know there will be less good bets available overall.
Tom

[Rick Ransom]

Tom,

Yes, but with so much inter-state simulcast betting now you don't know in time what the real odds are. On the other hand, I don't think you need to know the final odds. You can probably do just as well by using morning line odds (adjusted if necessary) or 5 minute odds. Late money doesn't represent informed bettors any more.

[tanda]

High take reduces play, but it also reduces R.O.I. even if you shop for odds.

For example, if you require a 20% edge and your horse needs to be 4:1 to give you that edge. He goes off at 4.20 at a high take track. Yes, as Tom says, you still get the edge you need. But with a lower take and breakage, you would get 4.35. Thus, in either scenario you get the value you need but you still get a lower R.O.I.

A higher take must always led to a lower R.O.I. Any winning bet will always be lower than it would with a lower take. Discipline cannot change that. Thus, if you make a 25% profit at high take downs, then you would have made a higher profit (say 27.5%) at medium take downs. If 20% is your goal, then it is true that you have accomplished it at both tracks, but your R.O.I., while acceptable, is still lower than it would have been.

[Ed Hutchens]

I don't have the same problem others do because I only bet to win. If my horse is the price I like, I bet it. If not, I don't. It doesn't matter if they're taking 14% or 20%. I'd rather pay 20% and go against a mostly ignorant crowd at a small track than pay 14% and fight lots of smart guys like it would be in New York.

[takeout]

Every now and then Beyer or one of the other writers does a column on the takeout and its effect on a bettor's bottom line. I think Tanda's last post put it as succinctly as I have ever read it. Someone correct me if needed, but when they outlawed the rebates in Vegas, didn't their handle drop by about $150 million a year? That says a lot. There's a good reason why the big bettors follow the rebates and buy their own OTBs.

[Rick Ransom]

I'll bet "Ernie the whale" was happy to see the Sartoga takeout reduced. That will probably double his ROI since he has such a small edge.