Horse Racing needs a DUMB BET!

[Tuffmug]

The thread on Horse Racing vs. Poker got me thinking about why slots and poker and sports betting have attracted so much more money than racing. Horse racing has the worst of it because of it's higher takeout but I don't think that is why it gets fewer gambling dollars. I believe it is because all the other games are perceived by the public to be simpler betting propositions than horse racing.

I believe the structure of wagering in Horse racing needs to include a DUMB bet that the casual gambler will enjoy making because he has a perceived coin flip or better probability of winning even if it has a long term negative expectation. I suggest that the tracks institute a FIELD BET which pays off IF THE FAVORITE LOSES.

Perception is reality. To a casual gambler, a win bet on the favorite IS NOT perceived to be a 33% probability. In a ten horse field, the casual gambler perceives the favorite to be a 10% probability. He would, likewise, perceive the FIELD BET to be a 90% probability.

The FIELD BET will be an average winner (albeit with a negative profit expectation) 2/3rds of the time. It's a DUMB Bet but it is a bet that many might want to make because they get to win and win often!!

[Horseplayersbet.com]

The thread on Horse Racing vs. Poker got me thinking about why slots and poker and sports betting have attracted so much more money than racing. Horse racing has the worst of it because of it's higher takeout but I don't think that is why it gets fewer gambling dollars. I believe it is because all the other games are perceived by the public to be simpler betting propositions than horse racing.

I believe the structure of wagering in Horse racing needs to include a DUMB bet that the casual gambler will enjoy making because he has a perceived coin flip or better probability of winning even if it has a long term negative expectation. I suggest that the tracks institute a FIELD BET which pays off IF THE FAVORITE LOSES.

Perception is reality. To a casual gambler, a win bet on the favorite IS NOT perceived to be a 33% probability. In a ten horse field, the casual gambler perceives the favorite to be a 10% probability. He would, likewise, perceive the FIELD BET to be a 90% probability.

The FIELD BET will be an average winner (albeit with a negative profit expectation) 2/3rds of the time. It's a DUMB Bet but it is a bet that many might want to make because they get to win and win often!!
It wouldn't work like that. Enough players would bet the chalk down to their parimutuel odds.
On Betfair one can bet against the favorite, and generally the fave is a bit higher odds than the track offers...mainly because the takeout at Betfair is only around 3% on average.

Dumb bet types have been tried, like even odd betting in Kentucky. It failed to grow the sport with new players.

[CBedo]

I'm not so sure. Judging by other forms of gambling, I think many would rather have a big payoff than a good chance of hitting (of course we would like both), which is why I think the ten cent supers continue to grow relative to other pools as people play them like quick picks.

[chickenhead]

50/35/15 (or something like that) as a substitute for wps betting.

50% of the pool distributed amongst the people who have the winner.
35% of the pool to people with the 2nd place horse.
15% of the pool to people with the 3rd place horse.

You can think of it as win betting with consolation payoffs for 2nd or 3rd.

There would be some good things about this, you can show expected payoffs for 2nd or 3rd prior to the race (as it doesn't depend on who else comes in)...and you get the hit rate of show bets with higher payoffs. What you have to trade to get that tho is lower 3rd place prices (below breakeven sometimes). But I think its more intuitive than the current wps payout system, 1st timers struggle with it often.

I can't say I'd like it, tho if there was an alternate exchange to place straight bets I wouldn't care -- but its "dumb" bet that maximizes hit rate while keeping some upside.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Dumb bet types have been tried elsewhere and been a complete failure. In Australia the TABs tried a bet called the Spinner where it was simply odds vs evens in terms of saddlecloth number of the horse

The pools were abysmal and the bet type died a quick death. Problem with this type of bet is the winning odds will generally be odds on. Also people who bet on horses generally like to have an opinion so the regular horseplayers will not touch it. It was designed I would guess partly to bring in new dumb money but it failed as you can bet dumb on many many forms of gambling where you don't need to waste your time waiting for a horse race to be run

[Pell Mell]

I think the reason dime supers have caught on is that most gamblers want a lot for a little and that's why I think there should be some kind of sweepstakes.

For instance, tickets could start being sold on every horse nominated to the Ky Derby. I don't mean that the player would select what horse they wanted but would just get a random horse. There could be payoffs for horses that just get into the race and from the winner on down the line.

I don't know exactly how the Irish Sweepstakes worked but it's got to be something along those lines. Something where there's a life changing score to be made by the lucky ticket holders.

I remember when everybody and their brother bought sweepstakes tickets and all they knew was that it was all about a horse race and one could win a ton of money. I know they sold millions and millions of tickets.

There must be somebody that can think of something along those lines. just think of the millions just watching to see if their horse gets into the race, let alone win it.

Just a thought.;)

[CBedo]

How about a modified field bet. Just as a field bet in craps leaves out the most common numbers, how bout the horse field bet either leaves out the top two favorites, or the other way, where depending on field size, you get the 3 or 4 longest shots on the board!

[fmolf]

How about a modified field bet. Just as a field bet in craps leaves out the most common numbers, how bout the horse field bet either leaves out the top two favorites, or the other way, where depending on field size, you get the 3 or 4 longest shots on the board!
they used to have field bets in the old days when a tote board could only handle so many horses so horses were put in a field .they usually had long odds 20/1 or better...a lot of times they would be bet down by the dumb money..thinking wow i am getting three horses for the price of one!......we already have a dumb bet at most tracks...the pick six!

[Jeff P]

One inherent problem with "dumb" bets is that the wager itself has to give the customer the appearance of value... otherwise no one will play for very long.

The appearance of value is really hard to create given the typical takeout that track management and horsemen keep insisting upon.

Let's create a "dumb" wager and call it "ODD or EVEN." If you bet ODD and a horse with an odd numbered saddle cloth (1,3,5,7,9, etc) crosses the wire first - you win. If you bet EVEN and a horse with an even numbered saddle cloth (2,4,6,8,10, etc) crosses the wire first - you win.

Simple, right?... But what do the payoffs look like?

Let's say for the sake of argument that 10,000 customers are in attendance at a track on a given afternoon... and along comes a race with a 10 horse field. To keep things simple let's further say that 5,000 customers happily each buy a $2.00 ticket on ODD at 22% takeout and that the other 5,000 customers happily each buy a $2.00 ticket on EVEN at 22% takeout... creating a total pool of $20,000.00.

The race goes off and a horse with an even numbered saddle cloth wins. EVEN pays off at $3.00 calculated as follows:
Total Pool: 20,000.00
Less 22% Takeout -4,400.00
------------------------------
Amt Distributed 15,600.00


Each Ticket Pays = Amt Distributed / # of tickets

Each Ticket Pays = 15,600 / 5,000

= 3.12 (before breakage)

= 3.00 (after dime breakage)
The above scenario represents a "dumb" bet, something people can play without having to put in a whole lot of analysis time.

However, I'll make the argument that nobody in their right mind would play it for very long because the effect of takeout and breakage is just too obvious.

A winning $2.00 ticket that should intuitively pay $4.00 ends up only paying $3.00 because of the way track management and horsemen insist on pricing the game.

It's not rocket science. Give customers at least the appearance of value and they'll become involved. If you don't, they'll spend their money elsewhere.


-jp

.

[HuggingTheRail]

I think Emerald had a "head to head" wager at one time...think it was on one race per card (the feature race?), usually pit two medium odds (in ML odds 6-1 or 8-1) against one another. It always had a very low pool.....I think people caught on to the effects of takeout

[CBedo]

One inherent problem with "dumb" bets is that the wager itself has to give the customer the appearance of value... otherwise no one will play for very long.

The appearance of value is really hard to create given the typical takeout that track management and horsemen keep insisting upon.

Let's create a "dumb" wager and call it "ODD or EVEN." If you bet ODD and a horse with an odd numbered saddle cloth (1,3,5,7,9, etc) crosses the wire first - you win. If you bet EVEN and a horse with an even numbered saddle cloth (2,4,6,8,10, etc) crosses the wire first - you win.

Simple, right?... But what do the payoffs look like?

Let's say for the sake of argument that 10,000 customers are in attendance at a track on a given afternoon... and along comes a race with a 10 horse field. To keep things simple let's further say that 5,000 customers happily each buy a $2.00 ticket on ODD at 22% takeout and that the other 5,000 customers happily each buy a $2.00 ticket on EVEN at 22% takeout... creating a total pool of $20,000.00.

The race goes off and a horse with an even numbered saddle cloth wins. EVEN pays off at $3.00 calculated as follows:
Total Pool: 20,000.00
Less 22% Takeout -4,400.00
------------------------------
Amt Distributed 15,600.00


Each Ticket Pays = Amt Distributed / # of tickets

Each Ticket Pays = 15,600 / 5,000

= 3.12 (before breakage)

= 3.00 (after dime breakage)
The above scenario represents a "dumb" bet, something people can play without having to put in a whole lot of analysis time.

However, I'll make the argument that nobody in their right mind would play it for very long because the effect of takeout and breakage is just too obvious.

A winning $2.00 ticket that should intuitively pay $4.00 ends up only paying $3.00 because of the way track management and horsemen insist on pricing the game.

It's not rocket science. Give customers at least the appearance of value and they'll become involved. If you don't, they'll spend their money elsewhere.


-jp

.Unfortuantely, having to think of a high takeout rate involved is reality. That's why I was thinking of maybe the "multiple longshot as a field bet" possibly. It might (ok this could be a stretch) be taxed at win pool rates and would give the uninformed public the perception that they were getting 3 for the price of 1 or something similar. Wo knows, maybe it would increase the overbet longshot bias and help out the low and middle priced horses if marketed right.

[Robert Goren]

They have one. It is called the pick 6. People used to bet numbers. But you have to get them to the track for them to bet it. I took a lady friend of mine to the track once. She made one trip to the lady's room and we left. All I heard about for a week was how gross it was. She will never ever sit foot in a track again.

[acorn54]

i think that the lack of an appearance of value because of the high takeout rates is the number one reason the sport is dying.

[Robert Goren]

Single digit exacta really make me want to bet.

[miesque]

They have one. It is called the pick 6. People used to bet numbers. But you have to get them to the track for them to bet it. I took a lady friend of mine to the track once. She made one trip to the lady's room and we left. All I heard about for a week was how gross it was. She will never ever sit foot in a track again.


Whenever the conversation rotates back to "why aren't there more women at the track" and/or "why have we lost women to the casinos", the subject of bathrooms is actually much more important then your typical male racing executive sitting ensconced in their office thinks. No, they are certainly not a be all and end all, but they are something that should be minor but can become important because when an organization fails to take care of the "little things." At that point its a small issue that can fester into a much bigger issue. The reason I say that is because failure or dissatifaction with rest facilties can override a lot of positive goodwill accrued elsewhere at the track (if positive goodwill was indeed accrued). Now if you work at a racetrack and smirk at this post, you are part of the problem whether you realize it or not.

Womens Restrooms at racetracks were something I basically used to not put any emphasis on and gloss over and suck it up if I was not thrilled with it, "a cost of doing business" so to speak if it was unpleasant. However, after attending Belmont Stakes 2008 and experiencing the level of sheer anger and outrage I had at how bad the bathroom situation was and dealt with, I now actually pay close attention whenever use a restroom when I visit a racetrack and make mental notes on how clean, presentable and well maintained it is and any review of that trip will typically include at least a sentence on the conditions of the rest rooms.

I will leave you with one observation I found interesting on one of my trips this year to Charles Town. In the women's rest room in the Casino section of Charles Town close to the main entrance, there is a very pleasant, signficant in size and scope plant/flower arrangement/planting (whatever you call it). It was not "necessary" but it was a nice touch (and yes, the rest of the bathroom was clean and well kept) Charles Town may be backward in a few ways, but they do know how to have a proper and presentable Ladies Room in their casino.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Firstly - great point on women's bathrooms; completely overlooked. :ThmbUp:

I used to be much better at permutations and combinations and I'm too tired and lazy to grab a pen and paper, but I wondered if a PICK bet, a la pick 6 or full card pick all parlay-style, odd/even play could keep people engaged on a casual level, defeat to some degree the rake, and offer value for novices...

ie:

1: O
2: O
3: E
4: O
5: O
6: E
7: E
8: E
9: O
= $2

???

[Robert Fischer]

Firstly - great point on women's bathrooms; completely overlooked. :ThmbUp:

I used to be much better at permutations and combinations and I'm too tired and lazy to grab a pen and paper, but I wondered if a PICK bet, a la pick 6 or full card pick all parlay-style, odd/even play could keep people engaged on a casual level, defeat to some degree the rake, and offer value for novices...

ie:

1: O
2: O
3: E
4: O
5: O
6: E
7: E
8: E
9: O
= $2

???
Cool idea :)

[samyn on the green]

Churchill had the over/under bet (http://gregcalabrese.blogspot.com/2008/04/churchill-overunder-bet.html) in 2008 for the low attention span/low IQ masses-the average man.

The wager was whether the sum of the program numbers of the first three finishers will be over or under a certain number. It was an abject failure averaging $200 per race pool. It was promptly canceled a few weeks later.

[Viruss]

I think every track need to be better covered by the news. Whens the last time you opened up the sports page of the news paper and seen an artical of local news coverage about a horse,trainer or jockey at your local track. Any thing that would make a story to generate interest some kind.Interest that would draw people into to see whats going on at your local track.

Give people a reason to come to the track see whats going on...all local tracks need a little SEABISCUIT.


Earl J

[Robert Goren]

I think every track need to be better covered by the news. Whens the last time you opened up the sports page of the news paper and seen an artical of local news coverage about a horse,trainer or jockey at your local track. Any thing that would make a story to generate interest some kind.Interest that would draw people into to see whats going on at your local track.

Give people a reason to come to the track see whats going on...all local tracks need a little SEABISCUIT.


Earl JAn article on a jockey or trainer is like doing an article on a poker dealer. We need articles on betters. In fairness the local paper did an article on a local man who won the National Handicapping Tournament in Vegas a few years ago. The trouble with doing an article on a trainer is that a couple weeks after publication the trainer will get a bad test.

[JohnGalt1]

Don't most tracks offer quick pick where the computer picks your horses?

What could be DUMBER than that?

[Jeff P]

Don't most tracks offer quick pick where the computer picks your horses?

What could be DUMBER than that?

Umm... maybe this?

BOARD RESOLVES ‘QUICK PICK’ ISSUE
http://www.chrb.ca.gov/press_releases/2008_07_10_press_release.pdf

The agreement results from an investigation that began May 9 after the CHRB discovered and confirmed that due to a programming error, some of Scientific Games’ betting terminals were producing Quick Pick tickets that did not include the entire array of runner numbers in their selection. In its investigation, the CHRB determined that Quick Pick wagers were excluding the last numbered wagering interest. Furthermore, the investigation determined that certain technical personnel with Scientific Games had been aware of the programming error since October 2007, but did not disclose it to the CHRB.


-jp

.

[acorn54]

I think every track need to be better covered by the news. Whens the last time you opened up the sports page of the news paper and seen an artical of local news coverage about a horse,trainer or jockey at your local track. Any thing that would make a story to generate interest some kind.Interest that would draw people into to see whats going on at your local track.

Give people a reason to come to the track see whats going on...all local tracks need a little SEABISCUIT.


Earl J

i think the younger generation is sharper when it comes to money sports than in the 1930's, they know all the angles and size up what money sports give them the best edge, the take out rates in horseracing are a big turnoff to the kids today.

[Robert Fischer]

some sharp ideas in this thread

and the things Jeff P and others have mentioned about takeout are right on

I actually think there is a place for a "dumb bet" and it could be tailored to be low takeout

However, I don't think we can just institute a "dumb bet" smack the snooze button and go back to sleep - first we have to grow the player population. The dumbbet or even slight improvements in takeout aren't going to grow the population by a huge amount just by themselves. This is why the product needs to be improved, and the mass media effort has to be utilized.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Has to attract new bettors. Has to involve no or little math. Has to be big payoffs. I still like my idea of bet with payoff only if longest shot wins- otherwise a carryover. Bet also predicts longest odds because you have to bet the horse that will become the longest tote odds AND it has to win. Payoff required of winner of last racer of meet regardless of odds, carryover + last day pool split among those who bet winner last race of meet.

[rokitman]

Horseracing + Dumb=Failure

This equation has been proven countless times.

[skate]

good idea, good idea, yes sir.

People have an amount of intimidation. just to place a bet. Not just with the horses, but even football (smaller degree).

so, something simple, along with a nice payout.

The odds changing gives people a problem, makes them uncertain.

maybe, the 'O' 'E' idea over a two or three race span, with set odds.

[skate]

Horseracing + Dumb=Failure

This equation has been proven countless times.


Hey hey hey now, just one minute here...

[johnhannibalsmith]

Horseracing + Dumb=Failure

This equation has been proven countless times.

I actually quite enjoyed this math problem... :D

[toetoe]

I believe the structure of wagering in Horse racing needs to include a DUMB bet


How about having to pick the first five finishers in a race, in order, with a takeout starting at 20-plus% in California, and increasing from there ($1 minimum) ?

[Light]

From experience with friends and relatives,the attraction of the little guy(excuse the pun),to poker is because they can go online at any time and enter a tounament for 10 cents with the possibility of wining $50 or $100. Its a form of recreation at a fraction of what it would cost to go out to dinner or the movies.

Yet alot of people on this forum and in the horseracing industry think lowering the minimum bets would hurt it. Poker has proved the opposite is true. I think all bets should be lowered to a dime, just like poker. You could call that a dumb bet,but there you have it. If poker can kick the horseracing industry's ass with 10 cent bets,the really dumb bet from the horseracing industry would be not lowering the cost of its bets.

[HuggingTheRail]

How about having to pick the first five finishers in a race, in order, with a takeout starting at 20-plus% in California, and increasing from there ($1 minimum) ?

Would it be wrong to call it the Stupidfecta? :D

[toetoe]

Call it the "if at first you don't succeed, tri-stupidf@#ker."

[kenwoodallpromos]

IMHO the potential betting public is not stupid enough to believe that an odd/even or any other 2-way bet is consistently winnable with a 14+% takeout. All the occasional bettors I know want to pick ;ongshots, so either a carryover buildup or multiple longshot bet would be ny view.
Are the races being written to be most competitive nowadays? I doubt turf or sprints are enough.

[PaceAdvantage]

From experience with friends and relatives,the attraction of the little guy(excuse the pun),to poker is because they can go online at any time and enter a tounament for 10 cents with the possibility of wining $50 or $100. Its a form of recreation at a fraction of what it would cost to go out to dinner or the movies.

Yet alot of people on this forum and in the horseracing industry think lowering the minimum bets would hurt it. Poker has proved the opposite is true. I think all bets should be lowered to a dime, just like poker. You could call that a dumb bet,but there you have it. If poker can kick the horseracing industry's ass with 10 cent bets,the really dumb bet from the horseracing industry would be not lowering the cost of its bets.First off, I don't think there are any brick-and-mortar card rooms spreading 10-cent tourneys...I could be wrong, but I don't think so...

Second, I don't think 10-cent online poker tourneys are what attracted the little guy to poker. What attracted the little guy to poker is:

Seeing "everyman" Chris Moneymaker win MILLIONS on ESPN
The apparent simplicity of the game
The ability to play the game online easily...in your underwear if so desired
Racing has taken care of point #3 of that three part answer above. It can never realize point #2 because the game will NEVER appear simple. Point #1 is up to some creative marketing genius to realize some day....

[Horseplayersbet.com]

First off, I don't think there are any brick-and-mortar card rooms spreading 10-cent tourneys...I could be wrong, but I don't think so...

Second, I don't think 10-cent online poker tourneys are what attracted the little guy to poker. What attracted the little guy to poker is:

Seeing "everyman" Chris Moneymaker win MILLIONS on ESPN
The apparent simplicity of the game
The ability to play the game online easily...in your underwear if so desired
Racing has taken care of point #3 of that three part answer above. It can never realize point #2 because the game will NEVER appear simple. Point #1 is up to some creative marketing genius to realize some day....
Point one was possible because low rakes created an audience large enough so that the money it took to seed a huge game was worth it to advertisers and the house.
You left out the major point that because of the low rake, players are able to last, some could even win, and in general, most players have the idea they could be the next Moneymaker.

[melman]

Racing already has two super dumb bets, there called 26% take on a pic4 bet and 32% take on a trifecta bet. Couple that with the super trainers and there drugged up horses and the general public feels they have no shot. With poker they feel the do have a chance. There is no new bet that will increase interest in racing unless it is a bet with a very low takeout.

[Tom]

You want a dumb racing bet?
Check out my wager log at you Bet.

[DeanT]

You want a dumb racing bet?
Check out my wager log at you Bet.
:D

Tom you really have to learn to not bet your dumb bets and bet your good bets........ Sheesh, this game is easy! :D

I think the whole poker thing is explained by low take and word of mouth. Online poker was rolling in the late 1990's before it was on TV, on campus's and in every day life. People were winning, and spreading the word. Those who were not winning, thought they could. Billions of dollars were changing hands on online poker tables.

I dislike playing poker - it is not for me. But about the year 2000, when a friend was quitting his job because he could earn a living at it, I opened an account to see what the fuss was about. I knew absolutely nothing about hold em, other than playing in a game once or twice. I put $100 in an account and I played for about three months at low tables. I lost it, but played for a long time. I said to myself "I could win at this if I did some reading and dedicated some time at it." Whether I could or not was not relevant - I thought I could.

Flip over to racing. I can put $100 in my online horse betting account and that could be gone in three minutes. When 99 out of 100 people lose betting your sport - a sport that is really hard to learn in the first place - you are in serious trouble as a gambling game, imo.

"You can beat a race, but can not beat the races" is a long held saying in our game. In poker it is "learn to play and you can be a winner". The latter will always win out.

[MNslappy]

Just speaking from my own experience with my circle of 20something and 30something male friends, the difficulty in learning the game is the #1 issue with them. The amount of time it takes to become adept at wagering on this sport versus the payouts you're likely to encounter throughout the first few YEARS of learning is the reason most of them have never caught the bug like I have.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Just speaking from my own experience with my circle of 20something and 30something male friends, the difficulty in learning the game is the #1 issue with them. The amount of time it takes to become adept at wagering on this sport versus the payouts you're likely to encounter throughout the first few YEARS of learning is the reason most of them have never caught the bug like I have.
But- I would add that maybe the lack of interest in studying and spending large amounts of time prior to finding a few simplefactors or finding the personally suitable software betting programs is important too!
Too many methods and saoftware types is confusing.
As far as PR, ending up labeling non-handicapping bets as "dumb bets" may be a turnoff too!
We addicted to discussing racing use many derogatory terms.
we as a sport already massively promote feature races- that would be the natural races to try new bets or simplified ways of handicapping. I invite someone to start another thread asking for suggestions on ways to simplify betting using only programs (with small additions) or new One-Step Bets" in features.

[thespaah]

I think Emerald had a "head to head" wager at one time...think it was on one race per card (the feature race?), usually pit two medium odds (in ML odds 6-1 or 8-1) against one another. It always had a very low pool.....I think people caught on to the effects of takeout.

[kingfin66]

WEHT

Kenwoodallpromos?

[Pensacola Pete]

Dumb bet won't work because of the takeout. People aren't going to fade 14%+ on a random bet with even money or worse odds when they can get a better deal with casino games.

[Jeff P]

For sake of example purposes, let's define a "dumb bet" as: A bet (or series of bets) that can be keyed off of a simple concept requiring little or nothing in the way of critical thinking.

In today's age of instant gratification, the idea is that such bets might prove attractive to the casual "fan" or newbie race goer.

Off the top of my head, here are a few ideas for "dumb bets" that have been suggested to me by track execs and people within the industry over the past year:

• HEAD TO HEAD MATCHUP... Really simple. Horse-A vs. Horse-B within the same race. Doesn't matter where they finish so long as A beats B. Example: Player bets "A" who goes out and finishes ahead of "B." Player collects.

• ODD/EVEN... Pretty simple. It's based on saddle cloth number. Player bets "ODD" for example. Horse with odd numbered saddle cloth wins the race, player collects.

This could be extended to exa, tri, and super. Example: Player bets "ODD2". Horses with odd numbered saddle cloths finish 1-2. Player collects. Another example: Player bets "ODD3." Top 3 finishers in the race each have odd numbered saddle cloths (such as 3-5-9.) Player collects.

• LEADING RIDER/LEADING TRAINER... Again, pretty simple. It's based on the rider and trainer standings as printed in the track program that race day. Player bets "LEADING RIDER" for example. The winner of the race turns out to be the rider in that race who is ranked highest in the rider standings as printed in the track program that day. Player collects. Same thing can be done with trainers. Can be extended to multi-race exotics.

Simple dumbed down bets designed with the newbie race goer in mind. (No handicapping required.)

I bounced these bets off a horseplayer focus groups conducted via conference call. The group overwhelmingly said "NO!" for the following two reasons:

1. It's the takeout stupid. A 16 percent takeout rate produces net losses of 25 percent for random selections made in WPS pools. A head to head horse matchup bet at similar takeout rates (factoring in breakage) magnifies that effect. When compared to a "pickem" NFL game at a sports book it becomes glaringly obvious that such bets are a really bad gamble - unless of course they could be offered at lower takeout rates with breakage eliminated. (Only then would such bets be attractive from a prize payout standpoint.)

2. Separate pools for such bets would dilute pools for regular bets that are already anemic.



-jp

,

[senortout]

actually, the odd-even 'dumb' bet could be played to statistical advantage by a knowledgable player, if he thought it would be worthwhile overall. For instance, oftimes a bet of this nature would get most if not all of the logical horses in a race!

And what about those times when most of the scratches were even(or odd) giving you a further advantage(perhaps)...and on and on....

[EagleEye Po]

Investigate developing a new wagering product based on the game of Keno. Offer ~8 races which are run over the course of ~20 minutes. Graduated payouts would occur if a ticket had 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 winners. The minimum wager would be $0.50 . This would have be a low takeout wager.

The idea is to create a slot like game that uses the horse races as the vehicle. Participants would be exposed to a similar ‘rush’ the slot player’s experience. The action is quick, essentially a race every 2 minutes. The payouts would be much lower than a traditional Pic 8, but the churn should be high.

or

Make it a total game of chance by assigning numbers chosen, to horses randomly after wagering closes and before the races begin.

[Longshot6977]

Hmmmm, racing needs a dumb bet you say. Well, how about the other thread about NYRA's inexacta bet starting 1/1/14? That ought to do the trick. It has perceived value and is kinda dumb.