Do high purses equal success? I don't think so.

[Stillriledup]

Is it just me or does almost every word uttered by 'higher ups' in racing seem to revolve around giving more money to horsemen via higher purses to keep the game alive? You hear constantly, "if we can only raise purses, we can get better horses and with the better horses, the bettors will flock to the product"

I guess they see the massive betting pools of the Ky Derby and BC and assume that its the great races that attract betting dollars?

There are very few graded races in the country compared to the meat and potatoes type horses who grind out a living for the bettors every day. Racetrack execs don't realize that the takeout is 20% blended for a 3k claimer or a million dollar claimer.

Also, no one has ever told me why all the slots machine money goes directly to purses. Why not give some of that money to the bettors by adding money to betting pools? Why not say, "instead of giving this particular 20k to the purses, we're going to put that 20k into the 3rd race exacta pool and start that pool with a 20k carryover"

Some of these small tracks are running 5k claimers for purses of well over 10k. Win ONE RACE and you've basically paid for the horse and have some money left over for a nice night out on the town for 12 people, limo included.

I think this just goes back to the deep rooted belief by higher ups in this game that horseplayers are total "slime"bags and deserve to be treated like pond scum.

I guess i'll never get it.

[rastajenk]

No, I don't suppose you ever will.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Studies show that if you double purses, handle goes up only 6%.
Dropping takeout has a much more positive affect on increasing handle, and the horseman's bottom line.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Stillriledup:

Obviously, not all of the slot machine money goes to purses, but I think I know what you meant there in the context of the rest of the post -- and I agree with you one-hundred percent. Yes, I am a card carrying member of the local HBPA and it is a travesty.

Where we divert paths is how to use the slot revenue. I'm not disagreeing that something creative like supplementing a pool would be a better idea than those currently implemented, but if racing was serious about surviving, in my opinion, the slot revenue would be used as investment capital into the product itself.

My mantra on the subject has been to utilize revenues to justify meaningful takeout reductions, using the slot subsidies to offset the short-term shortfalls from take reductions. Additionally, slot revenues should subsidize top-shelf testing protocols, barn area security, track maintenance, and general pool integrity standards. Smaller symptoms of racing's decline to be dealt with - promotion, goodwill, rescue and retirement efforts - these should be on the radar as well.

If there are surpluses, by all means, pump up purses. But, if you deal with the aforementioned as a priority, purses will steadily climb in all likelihood, the gradual ascent helping to actually increase the true value of those purses. Obviously, investing in the core product and using the slot revenue to that end creates a much more stable product, capable of surviving and hopefully thriving over the long term.

Instead, what we have are horsemen with no core product and big purses, with a gaming operator in charge of the show. As it is in most of these jurisdictions a few years into this production, remove the slot subsidies and the core product is not going to sustain itself. It is welfare through and through - it keeps you going for as long as you can continue to collect it, but unless you take advantage of the opportunity to advance yourself and position yourself to self-sustainment - the potential for collapse is one legislative maneuver away.

[rwwupl]

Is it just me or does almost every word uttered by 'higher ups' in racing seem to revolve around giving more money to horsemen via higher purses to keep the game alive? You hear constantly, "if we can only raise purses, we can get better horses and with the better horses, the bettors will flock to the product"

I guess they see the massive betting pools of the Ky Derby and BC and assume that its the great races that attract betting dollars?

There are very few graded races in the country compared to the meat and potatoes type horses who grind out a living for the bettors every day. Racetrack execs don't realize that the takeout is 20% blended for a 3k claimer or a million dollar claimer.

Also, no one has ever told me why all the slots machine money goes directly to purses. Why not give some of that money to the bettors by adding money to betting pools? Why not say, "instead of giving this particular 20k to the purses, we're going to put that 20k into the 3rd race exacta pool and start that pool with a 20k carryover"

Some of these small tracks are running 5k claimers for purses of well over 10k. Win ONE RACE and you've basically paid for the horse and have some money left over for a nice night out on the town for 12 people, limo included.

I think this just goes back to the deep rooted belief by higher ups in this game that horseplayers are total "slime"bags and deserve to be treated like pond scum.

I guess i'll never get it.

Stillriledup,

Good Question!

I can only speak about California, and no, it is not your imagination this time.

For the last three decades or so,the Regulators(CHRB) have gone along with the requests of the horsemen,their organizations(TOC etc.),racetracks and their lobbyists exclusively (rubber stamp), gaining higher purses,higher take out, more silly, expensive exotic bets(4 horse trifectas,6 horse supers,etc.) ,uncoupling of entries,carryovers and so forth, that tend to make horse racing more of a game of chance rather than a game of skill as far as wagering is concerned.

Racing Forms (DRF)sales are way down,because who needs them?

Handicapping is not necessary for the big carryover payouts, just a big wallet and a little luck.

30 years ago if you had a claimer type horse, you could figure you would win your way out if you won three races with him. Today, you can get out with one win.

That would seem to bode well for most horsemen, but it does not seem to be enough... because everytime purses go up, costs go up. If the moderate price horseman is successful..he spends more to get a faster horse to compete with the big boys. Horsemen have succeeded in getting small fields with little competition and up to $400.00 "appearance fees"... it is never enough. Many horsemen can not tell you where the purses are generated from, they just want more.

The racetracks thought if they introduced more exotic bets,they would draw more fans,and besides they could mark them up with higher take out, and still advertise the take is competitive, if you only bet win, place or show.

They have been wrong at every turn.

They only succeeded in taking the fan base dollars faster, and no one could win anymore, so the fan base grew smaller, and migrated to other venues with a better deal for them.

How did this happen?

The CHRB is dominated by licensed horsemen,all members of the TOC also. They make rules and regulations that seem good for their brothers and the racetracks that they are in partnership with as the producers of the show... and they both have paid representatives at every meeting advising the Board what they want next. I am advised there are 183 organizations across the U.S. and most are supported directly or indirectly by the customers of racing,by the take out.

The missing link here is the players or customer representatives. No customer organization is funded by their own take out to provide input to the regulators... and the regulators are horsemen, not sportsmen (people with no direct ties to the industry), so they trust and favor their own . This creates an unbalanced financial stool, and the players are on the short leg.

Give everyone a chance to win, (with no guarantee) and our game will rebound... the people love horse racing.

rwwupl

[46zilzal]

I continue to be flabbergasted when I see maiden races at Woodbine have purses over 60K.

[Charlie D]

In the Monmouth Park reshaping has there been any mention of adjusting take out rates???

[InsideThePylons-MW]

In the Monmouth Park reshaping has there been any mention of adjusting take out rates???

No chance any lowering of them will occur.

I can imagine with their supposed "improved product" that a raise on their already high host fee can be expected. I would almost guess they will ask for Tracknet levels.

From what I've read, they think their live handle could triple and that total handle will go up 66%. Are you kidding me? Who is they and how are the horsemen going for this if that is what they are counting on for the success of the new purse structure?

[Charlie D]

So it looks like NJ reshape is just more "attendance money"( rwwupl) for horsemen and a missed opportunity to do something really positive by those that run the show.


Decent purses, clean competitive racing with lowish TO would have been a better seller as most who have an interest in sport would benefit from that kind of reshape.

[johnhannibalsmith]

So it looks like NJ reshape is just more "attendance money"( rwwupl) for horsemen...

What do you mean by "attendance money"? Gate receipts, concessions, program sales, etc.?

[Charlie D]

as in rwwupl's "apperance money" post John.

I may be wrong mind, but thats what i think will happen.

[andymays]

What do you mean by "attendance money"? Gate receipts, concessions, program sales, etc.?


I don't think any track even comes close to maxing out "attendance money" for an entire meet like Del Mar. I take the term "attendance money" to mean everthing someone going to the track spends money on.

They hold concerts every week. If you want to have a good time there and buy a few rounds for people and spend the day you need an extra thousand bucks sometimes besides your betting money.

[twindouble]

Excellent question and great responces. Felt good to read it and not disagree. Just one little thing stood out, "Racing Forms (DRF)sales are way down,because who needs them? Well a big thing to me, no racing form no more playing the horses for me. :((

[johnhannibalsmith]

Well, my question basically amounted to ascertaining how those receipts relate to revenue to horsemen. I'm not sure that I understood what Charlie was referring to with the phrase, so I asked for clarification. I'm still not sure that I follow, but I guess my initial perception wasn't quite what was intended. I can't think of a track that offers revenue to horsemen from any stream other than handle (or gaming subsidies), but would like to be educated if I am overlooking something.

[Charlie D]

My fault John, should have used same term as rwwupl did. Aplogies for the :confused:

[andymays]

Well, my question basically amounted to ascertaining how those receipts relate to revenue to horsemen. I'm not sure that I understood what Charlie was referring to with the phrase, so I asked for clarification. I'm still not sure that I follow, but I guess my initial perception wasn't quite what was intended. I can't think of a track that offers revenue to horsemen from any stream other than handle (or gaming subsidies), but would like to be educated if I am overlooking something.


The "attendance money" issue is a bone of contention at places like Del Mar. The extra concerts and things and the high prices don't contribute anything to the Horsemens bottom line. In fact most of them would argue that people have less to bet. The concerts take place after the races so most of the people going aren't really playing the races during the card.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... just more "attendance money"( rwwupl) for horsemen...

I fully understand what your point is Andy - now, in light of our last two exchanges, can you understand my confusion with this assertion from Charlie?

[andymays]

I fully understand what your point is Andy - now, in light of our last two exchanges, can you understand my confusion with this assertion from Charlie?


Yes, but I really haven't been following the whole thread word for word. I just thought I'd throw the Del Mar example in because it is an extreme example of how to raise revenue for a track that isn't directly related to handle although they claim it is. In my opinion it can have the opposite effect (high prices for drinks and stuff).

[The Paddock Room]

Yes, but I really haven't been following the whole thread word for word. I just thought I'd throw the Del Mar example in because it is an extreme example of how to raise revenue for a track that isn't directly related to handle although they claim it is. In my opinion it can have the opposite effect (high prices for drinks and stuff).

SO are you are saying racetracks should NOT reach out to potential new fans by the means of concerts, dollar nights, etc.?

Guess what? Racetracks haven't tried to bring in new fans, until just recently. Why do you think attendance at most racetracks can be counted on one hand? The fan base has died off significantly in recent years, with the lack of marketing foresight this industry has had. All the 70 year-old broken down horseplayers are dropping off one by one and need to be replaced.

But I'm sure you and your cronies are only concerned with the takeout rate..and couldn't care less about the future of the sport..just your own bottom line.

[Charlie D]

Good point about old horseplayers dying off and not being replaced. and that brings in this.


What is racing going to do when the current crop of "addicts and idiots" (Mullins) have had enough of the high TO, uncompetitive racing, dope violators etc and say I quit.

[andymays]

SO are you are saying racetracks should NOT reach out to potential new fans by the means of concerts, dollar nights, etc.?

Guess what? Racetracks haven't tried to bring in new fans, until just recently. Why do you think attendance at most racetracks can be counted on one hand? The fan base has died off significantly in recent years, with the lack of marketing foresight this industry has had. All the 70 year-old broken down horseplayers are dropping off one by one and need to be replaced.

But I'm sure you and your cronies are only concerned with the takeout rate..and couldn't care less about the future of the sport..just your own bottom line.

Yes, Tracks should do anything they can to make it. I can't blame them.


DX, C'mon now. I support HANA but if you've done any due dilligence you would find that on the areas where we disagree it gets ugly. As recently as a week ago we had a dust up. So, I am for lower takeout but at the same time I realize that Owners and Breeders are having a tough time as well. What is the statistic? About 98% of Owners and Horeplayers lose money at the end of the year?

If asked I would be the first guy in line to vote for changing the tax laws to benefit owners and breeders. At the same time I'd like to see a little more respect for Horseplayers.

Tell CWWASH I said hello as well. :D

[twindouble]

SO are you are saying racetracks should NOT reach out to potential new fans by the means of concerts, dollar nights, etc.?

Guess what? Racetracks haven't tried to bring in new fans, until just recently. Why do you think attendance at most racetracks can be counted on one hand? The fan base has died off significantly in recent years, with the lack of marketing foresight this industry has had. All the 70 year-old broken down horseplayers are dropping off one by one and need to be replaced.

But I'm sure you and your cronies are only concerned with the takeout rate..and couldn't care less about the future of the sport..just your own bottom line.

I'll be 70 in Nov and I'm far from being "broken down". I don't think Andy has any "cronies" here, from what I gather he's very passionate about supporting all players. I do agree the industry failed on the marketing side for many years.

[The Paddock Room]

At the same time I'd like to see a little more respect for Horseplayers.


Please give me some examples of the "respect for horseplayers" you would like to see.

[The Paddock Room]

I'll be 70 in Nov and I'm far from being "broken down". I don't think Andy has any "cronies" here, from what I gather he's very passionate about supporting all players. I do agree the industry failed on the marketing side for many years.

Sorry, I didn't mean anything personal.

I just meant that there aren't a lot of young fans that attend the races these days. So no one will be replacing the older fans. I meant no disrrespect in my post.

[Show Me the Wire]

Good point about old horseplayers dying off and not being replaced. and that brings in this.


What is racing going to do when the current crop of "addicts and idiots" (Mullins) say enough of the high TO, uncompetive racing, dope violators etc. I quit.

Dirt surfaces :bang: the tradtion the younger generation cherishes so much.

The younger generation is used to technological advances and the marketing of such advances, but let's market the opposite of what the younger generation finds appealing.

Instead the catch phrase; "it ain't your old man's (fill in the blank) anymore", we could grab a hold of the catch phrase "it is your old man's antiquated form of entertainment."

Hmmm I might be on to something I am copyrighting the phrase, "It is your old man's antiquated form of entertainment, gambling, etc" (copyright 2010, Show Me the Wire)

[andymays]

Please give me some examples of the "respect for horseplayers" you would like to see.


Well, there was an incident at Gulfstream last week where they had a surface change in the last race. In New York they protect the bettors by giving all the pick 6 players, pick 4 players etc an all in the race. Most people including members of the media who have written articles about it say it should be changed. That's one example

The other example I would give you is the Betfair example where the price of a bet is much less than in our system. Racing Executives know the takeout is too high but under the current system it's tough to lower it. The discussions they had the other day tells me they are starting to pay attention.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/55716/california-racing-gets-some-encouragement

Excerpt:

Representatives from the major racing associations each spoke briefly, with Santa Anita's Ron Charles suggesting it was time to give betting exchanges, including head-to-head wagering and betting on races in progress, legislative consideration.

"This is one example of ways to open up racing to new exciting types of wagering," Charles said.

Stephen Burn -- representing Betfair, the British online wagering company that owns TVG -- talked about the feasibility of getting American punters, who have been raised on the Pari-Mutuel system, to adapt to exchange betting. He also suggested that if successful, exchange wagering could provide more favorable financial returns for horsemen than they currently receive through advance deposit wagering.

"We want to be used as a tool" for improving racing's fortunes while getting exchange betting into the mainstream, Burn said.

[twindouble]

Sorry, I didn't mean anything personal.

I just meant that there aren't a lot of young fans that attend the races these days. So no one will be replacing the older fans. I meant no disrrespect in my post.

No problem and I totally agree with the above. I can get cranky but I don't ware my feelings on my sleeve.

[The Paddock Room]

Well, there was an incident at Gulfstream last week where they had a surface change in the last race. In New York they protect the bettors by giving all the pick 6 players, pick 4 players etc an all in the race. Most people including members of the media who have written articles about it say it should be changed. That's one example

The other example I would give you is the Betfair example where the price of a bet is much less than in our system. Racing Executives know the takeout is too high but under the current system it's tough to lower it. The discussions they had the other day tells me they are starting to pay attention.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/55716/california-racing-gets-some-encouragement

Excerpt:

Representatives from the major racing associations each spoke briefly, with Santa Anita's Ron Charles suggesting it was time to give betting exchanges, including head-to-head wagering and betting on races in progress, legislative consideration.

"This is one example of ways to open up racing to new exciting types of wagering," Charles said.

Stephen Burn -- representing Betfair, the British online wagering company that owns TVG -- talked about the feasibility of getting American punters, who have been raised on the Pari-Mutuel system, to adapt to exchange betting. He also suggested that if successful, exchange wagering could provide more favorable financial returns for horsemen than they currently receive through advance deposit wagering.

"We want to be used as a tool" for improving racing's fortunes while getting exchange betting into the mainstream, Burn said.

Well as far as information being available in a timely manner, I certainly agree with you on this. I don't think that has to do with disrespect for horseplayers, I think it has more to do with incompetent people getting the information out.

I have to disagree with you on the takeout.

It doesnt appear that ANYONE is making money in this industry..bettors are complaining about the takeout rate, trainers are complaining of Workmans Comp and other costs, owners are complaining about trainers fee..tracks are asking for fewer dates to lose less money.

EVERY form of gambling has their own "takeout rate"..Lottery-50%, Keno-25%, Horse Racing-Approx 15-25%. Sports Betting-10%, Blackjack 2% (with perfect play) If the takeout rate is too high for you then STOP BETTING and find another game.

[Charlie D]

Exchanges are not only good for bettors, they attract people who have no interest in the outcome of the event - The TRADERS.

[andymays]

Well as far as information being available in a timely manner, I certainly agree with you on this. I don't think that has to do with disrespect for horseplayers, I think it has more to do with incompetent people getting the information out.

I have to disagree with you on the takeout.

It doesnt appear that ANYONE is making money in this industry..bettors are complaining about the takeout rate, trainers are complaining of Workmans Comp and other costs, owners are complaining about trainers fee..tracks are asking for fewer dates to lose less money.

EVERY form of gambling has their own "takeout rate"..Lottery-50%, Keno-25%, Horse Racing-Approx 15-25%. Sports Betting-10%, Blackjack 2% (with perfect play) If the takeout rate is too high for you then STOP BETTING and find another game.


I've asked the question a million times "who's making all the money"?

Let me ask you this. Is 15% and 20% about right or is it OK to go up to 25% and 30%. What is the optimum takeout percentage to be fair to everyone?

[DeanT]

are only concerned with the takeout rate..and couldn't care less about the future of the sport.
Hi Paddock,

Most would argue taking care of the takeout rate does address the future of the sport.

The age demos for racing are skewed old, as we know. However, for other skill games, especially on the web it skews younger. Takeout, or ability to win is a big part of that. For example, betfair has this age demo:

http://www.quantcast.com/profile/demographicGraphAll?wunit=wd:com.betfair&cols=2


With horse racing their number one sport, it goes to reason that younger people are playing racing there; because of the ability to win. The takeout is 5% approximately.

Ancillary activities like concerts seems to work with other avenues, namely slots, but it does not seem to work with skill games. Online poker, betfair and other skewing younger gambling activities of a skill nature has never, nor will ever offer a free band, because they do not have to - their game sells itself to the younger generation through word of mouth, interactivity and the chance to win.

[Show Me the Wire]

I've asked the question a million times "who's making all the money"?

Let me ask you this. Is 15% and 20% about right or is it OK to go up to 25% and 30%. What is the optimum takeout percentage to be fair to everyone?


The optimum is what the market will bear. But in a regulatory system, in which this market operates, it is the rate of return or rate making the track operator desires to receive on its investment, in conjunction what the state agency feels is fair.

This is somewhat skewed, because the state agency has a vested interest in raising revenue from the regulated industry. In other words the regulatory agency receives its funding from the rate.

[The Paddock Room]

I've asked the question a million times "who's making all the money"?

Let me ask you this. Is 15% and 20% about right or is it OK to go up to 25% and 30%. What is the optimum takeout percentage to be fair to everyone?

I don't know what optimal takeout percentage is. After reading the HANA Forum, it seems there are teams of experts there that have calculated what the exact takeout rate should be, down to the thousandth of a percent, to make "everyone" happy. I will leave that to the experts.

Personally I mainly bet in California, mostly Win bets, and a few exotic bets.

To me, a 15% takeout on Win bets is acceptable. If not, I wouldn't bet.

If some bettors want to pay a 30% takeout to bet trifectas at Tampa Bay Downs, then whatever floats their boat. Myself, I would never make a bet with a 30% vigorish.

It just seems funny that some people will just go round and round about it..if you don't like it..don't bet it! Seems some horseplayers here will say "I will never bet Santa Anita again" "Stronach is a crook" "They manipulate races so the Pick 6 is carried over"..and then these SAME people go right back to betting the following day..in some countries they would send you to the funny farm for that type of behavior.

[FenceBored]

Dirt surfaces :bang: the tradtion the younger generation cherishes so much.

The younger generation is used to technological advances and the marketing of such advances, but let's market the opposite of what the younger generation finds appealing.

Instead the catch phrase; "it ain't your old man's (fill in the blank) anymore", we could grab a hold of the catch phrase "it is your old man's antiquated form of entertainment."


Hmmm I might be on to something I am copyrighting the phrase, "It is your old man's antiquated form of entertainment, gambling, etc" (copyright 2010, Show Me the Wire)

Oh Show, you're so melodramatic. Your solution is like completely antiquated. Tartan track (with added mercury :jump: ) dates back to the early 1960's.

PSxihhBzCjk

[andymays]

I don't know what optimal takeout percentage is. After reading the HANA Forum, it seems there are teams of experts there that have calculated what the exact takeout rate should be, down to the thousandth of a percent, to make "everyone" happy. I will leave that to the experts.

Personally I mainly bet in California, mostly Win bets, and a few exotic bets.

To me, a 15% takeout on Win bets is acceptable. If not, I wouldn't bet.

If some bettors want to pay a 30% takeout to bet trifectas at Tampa Bay Downs, then whatever floats their boat. Myself, I would never make a bet with a 30% vigorish.

It just seems funny that some people will just go round and round about it..if you don't like it..don't bet it! Seems some horseplayers here will say "I will never bet Santa Anita again" "Stronach is a crook" "They manipulate races so the Pick 6 is carried over"..and then these SAME people go right back to betting the following day..in some countries they would send you to the funny farm for that type of behavior.


I agree. If you don't like it as it is then don't bet.

Do you think Horseplayers should lobby for lower takeout just like a place like Los Alamitos lobbied for higher takeout. Or should Horseplayers keep silent?

Horseplayers are after all customers right?

[twindouble]

Well as far as information being available in a timely manner, I certainly agree with you on this. I don't think that has to do with disrespect for horseplayers, I think it has more to do with incompetent people getting the information out.

I have to disagree with you on the takeout.

It doesnt appear that ANYONE is making money in this industry..bettors are complaining about the takeout rate, trainers are complaining of Workmans Comp and other costs, owners are complaining about trainers fee..tracks are asking for fewer dates to lose less money.

EVERY form of gambling has their own "takeout rate"..Lottery-50%, Keno-25%, Horse Racing-Approx 15-25%. Sports Betting-10%, Blackjack 2% (with perfect play) If the takeout rate is too high for you then STOP BETTING and find another game.

Why should players just hang it up? The takeout issues boils down to fairness especially when a small % get a much lower takeout then all other players via rebates, up to 18 % in some cases. Everyone at the top is fighting and getting more, why not the average players? Most players will turn around and churn whatever reduction they get, be it track takeout reduction or equal rebates.

[The Paddock Room]

Hi Paddock,

Most would argue taking care of the takeout rate does address the future of the sport.

The age demos for racing are skewed old, as we know. However, for other skill games, especially on the web it skews younger. Takeout, or ability to win is a big part of that. For example, betfair has this age demo:

http://www.quantcast.com/profile/demographicGraphAll?wunit=wd:com.betfair&cols=2


With horse racing their number one sport, it goes to reason that younger people are playing racing there; because of the ability to win. The takeout is 5% approximately.

Ancillary activities like concerts seems to work with other avenues, namely slots, but it does not seem to work with skill games. Online poker, betfair and other skewing younger gambling activities of a skill nature has never, nor will ever offer a free band, because they do not have to - their game sells itself to the younger generation through word of mouth, interactivity and the chance to win.

You make some interesting points.

I think one thing that really works against horse racing is the 30-35 minutes in between races. The high tech kids of today don't have an attention span like that. No reason horse races couldn't be 15-20 minutes apart..I believe that is one of the many reasons, under 30-types rarely will go to the horse races. Boutique meets such as Del Mar, and possibly Keeneland and Saratoga, excepted.

[andymays]

Oh Show, you're so melodramatic. Your solution is like completely antiquated. Tartan track (with added mercury :jump: ) dates back to the early 1960's.

PSxihhBzCjk


Awesome clip. :ThmbUp:

[Show Me the Wire]

FenceBored:

Let me clarify the point for you. The point is the focus should be on how to make the game exciting for the younger generation, and the marketing they are use to is all about advances, in technology or whatever.

I was using humor as a vehicle to illustrate this point. Sorry to see you have no sense, of humor that is.

[The Paddock Room]

I agree. If you don't like it as it is then don't bet.

Do you think Horseplayers should lobby for lower takeout just like a place like Los Alamitos lobbied for higher takeout. Or should Horseplayers keep silent?

Horseplayers are after all customers right?

They can argue but it's not going to do any good.

There are huge inherent costs involved with horse racing, that other games of chance don't have. SOMEONE has to pay for them.

[The Paddock Room]

[/b]

Why should players just hang it up? The takeout issues boils down to fairness especially when a small % get a much lower takeout then all other players via rebates, up to 18 % in some cases. Everyone at the top is fighting and getting more, why not the average players? Most players will turn around and churn whatever reduction they get, be it track takeout reduction or equal rebates.

Rebates are an entirely different issue than track takeout.

[andymays]

They can argue but it's not going to do any good.

There are huge inherent costs involved with horse racing, that other games of chance don't have. SOMEONE has to pay for them.


I agree with the overhead. There is no question that the cost of everything is high.

Is racing horses and betting on them an outdated model?

[twindouble]

Rebates are an entirely different issue than track takeout.

Where did you get the impression that I didn't know the difference. Give a small percentage of people up to 18 % back on winning and losing tickets and the average players get peanuts. Those obscene rebates amounts to a much lower takeout for the whales. Don't you think??

[twindouble]

The Paddock Room; I find it interesting that you just found the most popular racing forum on the Internet.

[Charlie D]

To me, a 15% takeout on Win bets is acceptable.


Seems fairly reasonable to me too, so why not try and have TO at similar level all round.

[rwwupl]

Sorry, I didn't mean anything personal.

I just meant that there aren't a lot of young fans that attend the races these days. So no one will be replacing the older fans. I meant no disrrespect in my post.


The senior population is larger than ever before and growing ,and the seniors are the natural fan base of horse racing.

The problem is they are being ignored and all the promotion money is being spent (wasted, IMO) on young football and basketball fans who are more interested in a date and $1 beer than horse racing.. they will grow up and their interest will be refocused...The money spent on them has been wasted... meanwhile, how can it be explained we are losing our percentage share of the senior market to other venues? If we gave them a better deal, and allowed more winners, we would get our market share back (IMO).

Could it be that the marketing focus is wrong? ;)

[Show Me the Wire]

I agree with the overhead. There is no question that the cost of everything is high.

Is racing horses and betting on them an outdated model?

In a way, yes. Every one uses casinos, card rooms, slots, etc as an argument to lower takeout.

What is missing from the equation is the opportunity to create income or a stream of income.

The main source of income for a track is take out. The track has a limit on participation opportunity. The track can only card a sum certain specific amount of races per day, meet, etc., due to the inventory of horses. For example on a typical weekday in So. Cal. the track only has 8 events to generate income. So if someone bets win, place or show only the track receives gross income of 15% on each event.

Contrasting the limited event income model against the unlimited event model of casino games and slots is very apples to oranges type of comparison. Will the player that could only wager on 8 events at the track, make only 8 pulls of the slot machine or 8 hands poker? Of course not. It is not unusual to play in excess of one hundred pulls of the slot or play hands of poker.

The power of unlimited events, allows the casino to utilize a lower take out or vig for each individual event.

However, if you play certain table games where the house does not have a big edge, you have to pay the extra vig to play on the house or the banks side, i.e. craps, baccarat.

Thus, the comparison to a limited event pari-mutual game versus playing against the house, in unlimited events is faulty and shows the antiquity of pari-mutual wagering as an efficient source of income.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

You make some interesting points.

I think one thing that really works against horse racing is the 30-35 minutes in between races. The high tech kids of today don't have an attention span like that. No reason horse races couldn't be 15-20 minutes apart..I believe that is one of the many reasons, under 30-types rarely will go to the horse races. Boutique meets such as Del Mar, and possibly Keeneland and Saratoga, excepted.
If a young gambler is playing on the computer, you can easily play one race every 5-10 minutes these. Sometimes even less.

Attention span is not an issue.

You'll never get the crowds back like they were in the 30s-70s. But there is a whole slew of internet gamblers out there, who just don't have a reason to learn about horse racing because there are no visible winners thanks to the takeout.

There are visible winners at poker, and guess what.....

[twindouble]

Studies show that if you double purses, handle goes up only 6%.
Dropping takeout has a much more positive affect on increasing handle, and the horseman's bottom line.

There's no question higher purses bring in more horses, larger fields draw in more players so I think the larger fields cause an up tick in handle.

[Robert Goren]

In poker the gamblers are the stars. In horse racing the gamblers get as much respect as the horse'e rear end. ;)

[The Paddock Room]

If a young gambler is playing on the computer, you can easily play one race every 5-10 minutes these. Sometimes even less.

Attention span is not an issue.

You'll never get the crowds back like they were in the 30s-70s. But there is a whole slew of internet gamblers out there, who just don't have a reason to learn about horse racing because there are no visible winners thanks to the takeout.


I was talking about live racing. You and I didn't fall in love with the sport because we could make bets on the internet 5 minutes apart. We fell in love with the sport, because our dads took us to see the greats run IN PERSON. THAT'S how you fall in love with horse racing..first you get em out to the track, and THEN they'll bet on-line, etc.

Concerts, dollar hot dog night, etc. are a good first step to bring NEW fans to the TRACK. Lowering the takeout from 22% to 21% is not going to do ANYTHING..

[InsideThePylons-MW]

What is the optimum takeout percentage to be fair to everyone?

26%-27%

If that doesn't work......30%-35%

[The Paddock Room]

The senior population is larger than ever before and growing ,and the seniors are the natural fan base of horse racing.

The problem is they are being ignored and all the promotion money is being spent (wasted, IMO) on young football and basketball fans who are more interested in a date and $1 beer than horse racing.. they will grow up and their interest will be refocused...The money spent on them has been wasted... meanwhile, how can it be explained we are losing our percentage share of the senior market to other venues? If we gave them a better deal, and allowed more winners, we would get our market share back (IMO).

Could it be that the marketing focus is wrong? ;)

Horseplayers have ALWAYS been ignored. This is nothing new. Even in the 1960's, horseplayers were treated no different than today.

And I think it's funny how one of the lower takeout arguments is that horseplayers will "lose less" so they will in turn churn the money and "bet more". That doesn't speak highly on the intelligence of horseplayers.

[Show Me the Wire]

In poker the gamblers are the stars. In horse racing the gamblers get as respect as the horse'e rear end. ;)


Very cogent thought. I do believe you are on to something.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I was talking about live racing. You and I didn't fall in love with the sport because we could make bets on the internet 5 minutes apart. We fell in love with the sport, because our dads took us to see the greats run IN PERSON. THAT'S how you fall in love with horse racing..first you get em out to the track, and THEN they'll bet on-line, etc.

Concerts, dollar hot dog night, etc. are a good first step to bring NEW fans to the TRACK. Lowering the takeout from 22% to 21% is not going to do ANYTHING..
It is over for racing if they are depending on getting newbies to the track first.
Again, I'm talking about getting with the times.
And no, going from 22-21% will do NADA.
Horse racing can continue to die, or it can get with the times.

Lower takeouts. Visible winners. Embrace the internet, it is their friend.

[twindouble]

I was talking about live racing. You and I didn't fall in love with the sport because we could make bets on the internet 5 minutes apart. We fell in love with the sport, because our dads took us to see the greats run IN PERSON. THAT'S how you fall in love with horse racing..first you get em out to the track, and THEN they'll bet on-line, etc.

Concerts, dollar hot dog night, etc. are a good first step to bring NEW fans to the TRACK. Lowering the takeout from 22% to 21% is not going to do ANYTHING..

I agree there's no way the tracks will reduce takeout, right now they need every dollar they can get and it will get worse with this recession. I also agree there always has been a traditional and cultural thread tied to expansion and maintaining the fan base. Why the industry didn't capitalize on that is beyond me.

Players deserve an equal share of those rebates.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Horseplayers have ALWAYS been ignored. This is nothing new. Even in the 1960's, horseplayers were treated no different than today.

And I think it's funny how one of the lower takeout arguments is that horseplayers will "lose less" so they will in turn churn the money and "bet more". That doesn't speak highly on the intelligence of horseplayers.
WOW :bang: :bang: :bang:

You sound like a racing exec.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...And I think it's funny how one of the lower takeout arguments is that horseplayers will "lose less" so they will in turn churn the money and "bet more". That doesn't speak highly on the intelligence of horseplayers.

You "lose less" of your winnings, not less of your losings. There's a not so subtle difference that may temper the last sentence in your post.

[Charlie D]

Most of people i know personally who place bets do not and have no interest in going to track, their interest in sport comes via television pictures.


These are what i would call "fun" bettors btw.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I agree there's no way the tracks will reduce takeout, right now they need every dollar they can get and it will get worse with this recession. I also agree there always has been a traditional and cultural thread tied to expansion and maintaining the fan base. Why the industry didn't capitalize on that is beyond me.

Players deserve an equal share of those rebates.
Lowering takeout means more revenues for the tracks. That is what optimum takeout means. And horse racing takeout is too far from it.

[The Paddock Room]

The Paddock Room; I find it interesting that you just found the most popular racing forum on the Internet.

I've never posted here before, but I have lurked for several years. Way back when I posted on the old Prodigy Forum. After that Vinery.net. The Final Turn and Thoroughbred Champions Forums, as well.

Unlike some here, I am certainly no whale, but I will bet large amounts at times. I have been a fan of the sport for 30 years.

[twindouble]

Horseplayers have ALWAYS been ignored. This is nothing new. Even in the 1960's, horseplayers were treated no different than today.

And I think it's funny how one of the lower takeout arguments is that horseplayers will "lose less" so they will in turn churn the money and "bet more". That doesn't speak highly on the intelligence of horseplayers.

The name of the game for the tracks has always been churning money, there's not a player in the world that don't "churn" money, that don't make them losers or dummies.

[The Paddock Room]

You "lose less" of your winnings, not less of your losings. There's a not so subtle difference that may temper the last sentence in your post.

You are correct. I misspoke..well actually mistyped.

Personally, I don't buy the "churn argument". Maybe for some who have to bet every nickle in their pocket degenerates, but not for 98% of bettors..

[Horseplayersbet.com]

You are correct. I misspoke..well actually mistyped.

Personally, I don't buy the "churn argument". Maybe for some who have to bet every nickle in their pocket degenerates, but not for 98% of bettors..
WOW again.

So in 30 years at the track you've wound up with zero clue.

Are you a racing exec? You qualify.

[Charlie D]

It is over for racing if they are depending on getting newbies to the track first.
Again, I'm talking about getting with the times.
And no, going from 22-21% will do NADA.
Horse racing can continue to die, or it can get with the times.

Lower takeouts. Visible winners. Embrace the internet, it is their friend.



Correct HPB

[Stillriledup]

Well as far as information being available in a timely manner, I certainly agree with you on this. I don't think that has to do with disrespect for horseplayers, I think it has more to do with incompetent people getting the information out.

I have to disagree with you on the takeout.

It doesnt appear that ANYONE is making money in this industry..bettors are complaining about the takeout rate, trainers are complaining of Workmans Comp and other costs, owners are complaining about trainers fee..tracks are asking for fewer dates to lose less money.

EVERY form of gambling has their own "takeout rate"..Lottery-50%, Keno-25%, Horse Racing-Approx 15-25%. Sports Betting-10%, Blackjack 2% (with perfect play) If the takeout rate is too high for you then STOP BETTING and find another game.

I was on Yelp last night reading reviews on Golden Gate fields. Almost all the reviews were positive. The reviews were from young people, dozens of them, all raving about 'dollar days'. Most everyone said "i'm not there to wager, i didn't even make one bet, but i was there for the dollar hot dogs and beers, what a fun time, i didnt' realize the racetrack was so much fun!"

I think its one thing to physically get young people into the live racetracks, but its quite another when those young people have absolutely no desire to learn how to handicap or learn about the indepth analysis it takes to become a hard core player who's going to try and work their way up the ranks in order to be a bettor who's going to bet more than 2 dollars to show when they visit the racetrack once per month.

We need to replace the older horseplayer with a younger person who's actually going to embrace the challenge of the handicapping puzzle. With no one to teach them, they have zero shot to purchase a racing form for FIVE DOLLARS and try and learn to decipher what they deem as greek.

I think that one of the problems is that racing higher ups are so desperate to get people to attend live racing, that they think if they can pack the tracks with 20 somethings drinking dollar beers, that some of them will eventually get 'hooked' on the handicapping puzzle and try to become a horseplayer. I dont' think any of these people are going to actually purchase handicapping products and try to seriously attack the races from a betting standpoint. Physically getting them into the live facility is not enough.

If you listen to stories from men in their 40s, 50s and 60s and ask them when they got their first racetrack experience, they'll tell you stories that differ greatly from those who are in their 20s. Those stories you'll hear from the older men are littered with 'romance' from a far different time in our society. You'll hear stories about hopping fences, taking the A Train, skipping school, attending with their dads and whatnut. Today, none of this stuff exists much anymore, at least i don't think it does exist in the way it used to exist.

The process of learning how to handicap the horse races well enough to 'hold your own' is such a big undertaking, that many don't want to even bother to try. Can you blame them? Absolutely not, i don't blame a 25 year old man one bit if he took his girlfriend to dollar days at Golden Gate and did NOT spend five dollars for the 'past performances'. Why should this 25 year old man and his GF buy the form? They have absolutely no idea what to do with that form and there's no one there to teach them. Racing has not one person who's at live racetracks teaching newbies the 'joy of handicapping'.

I could go on for hours with this stuff, its really frustrating.

[The Paddock Room]

The name of the game for the tracks has always been churning money, there's not a player in the world that don't "churn" money, that don't make them losers or dummies.

Lets examine that statement:

Player A has $200 in his pocket, and bets $20 per race.

So why would he bet the few extra dollars in his pocket he received by a racetrack having a lower takeout.

Not logical.

This makes it sound like horseplayers will bet every last dollar in their pocket, no matter the race or circumstance. Sure we all know some people like that on track, but they are in the minority.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

To me, a 15% takeout on Win bets is acceptable. If not, I wouldn't bet.

I would love to see Betfair raise their takeout to 15% on every bet made.

Their volume/handle would drop by at least 90%. If they started to charge breakage too coupled with 15% takeout, I'm betting OVER 95% handle loss.

[The Paddock Room]

I was on Yelp last night reading reviews on Golden Gate fields. Almost all the reviews were positive. The reviews were from young people, dozens of them, all raving about 'dollar days'. Most everyone said "i'm not there to wager, i didn't even make one bet, but i was there for the dollar hot dogs and beers, what a fun time, i didnt' realize the racetrack was so much fun!"

I think its one thing to physically get young people into the live racetracks, but its quite another when those young people have absolutely no desire to learn how to handicap or learn about the indepth analysis it takes to become a hard core player who's going to try and work their way up the ranks in order to be a bettor who's going to bet more than 2 dollars to show when they visit the racetrack once per month.

We need to replace the older horseplayer with a younger person who's actually going to embrace the challenge of the handicapping puzzle. With no one to teach them, they have zero shot to purchase a racing form for FIVE DOLLARS and try and learn to decipher what they deem as greek.

I think that one of the problems is that racing higher ups are so desperate to get people to attend live racing, that they think if they can pack the tracks with 20 somethings drinking dollar beers, that some of them will eventually get 'hooked' on the handicapping puzzle and try to become a horseplayer. I dont' think any of these people are going to actually purchase handicapping products and try to seriously attack the races from a betting standpoint. Physically getting them into the live facility is not enough.

If you listen to stories from men in their 40s, 50s and 60s and ask them when they got their first racetrack experience, they'll tell you stories that differ greatly from those who are in their 20s. Those stories you'll hear from the older men are littered with 'romance' from a far different time in our society. You'll hear stories about hopping fences, taking the A Train, skipping school, attending with their dads and whatnut. Today, none of this stuff exists much anymore, at least i don't think it does exist in the way it used to exist.

The process of learning how to handicap the horse races well enough to 'hold your own' is such a big undertaking, that many don't want to even bother to try. Can you blame them? Absolutely not, i don't blame a 25 year old man one bit if he took his girlfriend to dollar days at Golden Gate and did NOT spend five dollars for the 'past performances'. Why should this 25 year old man and his GF buy the form? They have absolutely no idea what to do with that form and there's no one there to teach them. Racing has not one person who's at live racetracks teaching newbies the 'joy of handicapping'.

I could go on for hours with this stuff, its really frustrating.

Great Post..now the difficult part..what is the solution?

The whole mess that the sport is in really the result of the horse racing industry itself. Back in "the old days" If you wanted to bet it was horse racing..or a trip to Las Vegas. With a monopoly like that they never had to court new fans.

As sad as it sounds, maybe there is no cure for a sport whose most successful tracks are in locales that are subsidized by slot machines..

[Show Me the Wire]

WOW again.

So in 30 years at the track you've wound up with zero clue.

Are you a racing exec? You qualify.

I think he has a clue. We have had this discussion before. You view all wagering as fungible, while I and it appears others do not. Take out doesn't influence where I bet. What influences my decision, the geographic region I am familiar with and my confidence level in the wager. Also, I don't wager every race or every day.

For example if I can get 4 to 1 on a horse I have 99% confidence an 18% take out is not going to stop me from betting so I can bet on a 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 at some track with a lower take out.

Every one does not think or wager the same.

Your main issue should be the elimination of rebates.

This is a pari-mutual system and everybody should pay the same price to participate.

[The Paddock Room]

I would love to see Betfair raise their takeout to 15% on every bet made.

Their volume/handle would drop by at least 90%. If they started to charge breakage too coupled with 15% takeout, I'm betting OVER 95% handle loss.

Last I checked, Betfair is not legal in the United States..at least not yet.

[twindouble]

Lets examine that statement:

Player A has $200 in his pocket, and bets $20 per race.

So why would he bet the few extra dollars in his pocket he received by a racetrack having a lower takeout.

Not logical.

This makes it sound like horseplayers will bet every last dollar in their pocket, no matter the race or circumstance. Sure we all know some people like that on track, but they are in the minority.

That's an over simplification of churning at the track or online. Answer this question, if the industry has a handle of 13 billion dollars, what percentage of that handle is churned money?

[The Paddock Room]

WOW again.

So in 30 years at the track you've wound up with zero clue.

Are you a racing exec? You qualify.

No..not a racing exec. Just tired of horseplayers bitching about the same thing year after year after year of something they have no control over.

It must be miserable.

[Charlie D]

This is a pari-mutual system and everybody should pay the same price to participate.


Agree with this and that is why i think TO should be say 15% all round. That way Joe in NY pays same as Bill in Vegas and same as Charlie in UK and so on no matter which track or bet he decides to play.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Last I checked, Betfair is not legal in the United States..at least not yet.

I guess it's also not legal to use common sense when figuring out what effect pricing has on handle.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I think he has a clue. We have had this discussion before. You view all wagering as fungible, while I and it appears others do not. Take out doesn't influence where I bet. What influences my decision, the geographic region I am familiar with and my confidence level in the wager. Also, I don't wager every race or every day.

For example if I can get 4 to 1 on a horse I have 99% confidence an 18% take out is not going to stop me from betting so I can bet on a 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 at some track with a lower take out.

Every one does not think or wager the same.

Your main issue should be the elimination of rebates.

This is a pari-mutual system and everybody should pay the same price to participate.
No, he doesn't have a clue. He is obviously a racing exec wanting the horseplayer to be something they are not. That is the racing exec mentality.

I doubt takeout will ever drop substantially because there are too many execs with Paddock Rooms mentality.

I agree that the field should be leveled. Not by reduction of rebates but the ability for all to get the same rebates if they wish. This is more realistic.

[Stillriledup]

Great Post..now the difficult part..what is the solution?

The whole mess that the sport is in really the result of the horse racing industry itself. Back in "the old days" If you wanted to bet it was horse racing..or a trip to Las Vegas. With a monopoly like that they never had to court new fans.

As sad as it sounds, maybe there is no cure for a sport whose most successful tracks are in locales that are subsidized by slot machines..

I think there are many solutions to improve the game, even by a fraction of a fraction. The biggest problem is that racing is locked into a certain mindset, afraid of drastic change, these old racing executives are holding with dear life to what they believed to be true decades ago. Life has changed drastically in the last few decades yet racing hasn't changed at all. If you're a kid who wants to revisit 1980, go to a racetrack, its like going into a time machine back 30 years.

Biggest problem? Too much red tape.

[twindouble]

No..not a racing exec. Just tired of horseplayers bitching about the same thing year after year after year of something they have no control over.

It must be miserable.

Here again, I agree with that but don't you think it's about time they listen to the very people that support the game. Sounds like a good idea to me because we've been right more offten than being wrong and that's a fact!

[Robert Goren]

No..not a racing exec. Just tired of horseplayers bitching about the same thing year after year after year of something they have no control over.

It must be miserable.That is why we are bitching.;)

[Horseplayersbet.com]

No..not a racing exec. Just tired of horseplayers bitching about the same thing year after year after year of something they have no control over.

It must be miserable.
Are you a horseman?

And horseplayers may not have control over takeout, but those of us (not you) who are not mindless understand why horse racing is dying....at it is because they remain non competitive and there is no reason for a young person to learn the game.....Absolutely none.

[The Paddock Room]

That's an over simplification of churning at the track or online. Answer this question, if the industry has a handle of 13 billion dollars, what percentage of that handle is churned money?

I DO understand what you mean by churned money.

MY argument is dropping the takeout rate 1-2% is not going to mean a hill of beans in the long run.

The one thing I agree with HANA is when they boycott a certain bet or race when they think a takeout is too high. Good for them!

Let me ask YOU something..when Sam Houston lowered their takeout on certain bets (I forget the specifics..think it was Pick 3 or Pick 4 bets) to something like 10%, after the newness wore off, the handle was almost IDENTICAL to what it was when it was 20%.

WHy did that happen?

[Show Me the Wire]

No, he doesn't have a clue. He is obviously a racing exec wanting the horseplayer to be something they are not. That is the racing exec mentality.

I doubt takeout will ever drop substantially because there are too many execs with Paddock Rooms mentality.

I agree that the field should be leveled. Not by reduction of rebates but the ability for all to get the same rebates if they wish. This is more realistic.

Elimination of rebates is a far better solution and fairer. Rebates are based on amounts spent, so by definition we can't all get the same rebate, unless we all wager the same amount.

It is a pari-mutual game and every one should pay the same to participate and that is impossible with rebates of any kind.

[The Paddock Room]

Are you a horseman?

And horseplayers may not have control over takeout, but those of us (not you) who are not mindless understand why horse racing is dying....at it is because they remain non competitive and there is no reason for a young person to learn the game.....Absolutely none.


Nope..just a fan. Never owned a horse in my life, though I have been offered shares of several different horses through the years. Owning a horse is like owning a boat. Might as well throw my money down the toilet.

So let me ask you..you seem to have all the answers..give me your top 3 ways you would improve horse racing. And no, lowering takeout to 1% is not an option.

[rwwupl]

No..not a racing exec. Just tired of horseplayers bitching about the same thing year after year after year of something they have no control over.

It must be miserable.



What is your bottom line message? You seem to like the status quo. Does the status quo benefit you in some way?

If you do not like horse players bitching, why are you here?

We are not miserable... is that your problem? :)

What do you want us to know, that has not been said.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I DO understand what you mean by churned money.

MY argument is dropping the takeout rate 1-2% is not going to mean a hill of beans in the long run.

The one thing I agree with HANA is when they boycott a certain bet or race when they think a takeout is too high. Good for them!

Let me ask YOU something..when Sam Houston lowered their takeout on certain bets (I forget the specifics..think it was Pick 3 or Pick 4 bets) to something like 10%, after the newness wore off, the handle was almost IDENTICAL to what it was when it was 20%.

WHy did that happen?
Sam Houston continues to have a 12% Pick 3. They should be advertising it like crazy.

I can tell you have no clue about takeout so I'll go slow here:

People don't gravitate to lower takeouts generally. It doesn't work that way. Though thanks to HANA more and more players are cognizant of it than ever before (before going on, make sure you understand what cognizant means, look it up if you have to).

So what happens is some players will be attracted to the bet, but what mostly happens is those who cash the bet, wind up cashing more than they would have if the takeout was 20 or 25%.

That extra money (believe it or not) is churned back. Not necessarily at Sam Houston either. Could go on another track.

But at least the players lucky enough to cash will last a bit longer so it should have a positive impact on total handle in North America, but since this is a rarity, it is hardly felt.

[The Paddock Room]

I think he has a clue. We have had this discussion before. You view all wagering as fungible, while I and it appears others do not. Take out doesn't influence where I bet. What influences my decision, the geographic region I am familiar with and my confidence level in the wager. Also, I don't wager every race or every day.

For example if I can get 4 to 1 on a horse I have 99% confidence an 18% take out is not going to stop me from betting so I can bet on a 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 at some track with a lower take out.

Every one does not think or wager the same.

Your main issue should be the elimination of rebates.

This is a pari-mutual system and everybody should pay the same price to participate.

Agree, that the rebate issue is a slippery slope. One that gives some an unfair advantage. But again, that is a completely different subject than lowering the track takeout rate.

[The Paddock Room]

No, he doesn't have a clue. He is obviously a racing exec wanting the horseplayer to be something they are not. That is the racing exec mentality.


You got me..I'm da BOOGIEMAN..be afraid, be VERY afraid, LMAO.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Elimination of rebates is a far better solution and fairer. Rebates are based on amounts spent, so by definition we can't all get the same rebate, unless we all wager the same amount.

It is a pari-mutual game and every one should pay the same to participate and that is impossible with rebates of any kind.
Whatever floats your boats.
If rebates were eliminated tomorrow, handle would drop to 8 billion and continue to drop from there.

And no, rebates are a percentage. Let the percentage be the same for everyone.

If you don't get that this is the same as reducing takeout, you are lost too.

If you want to argue that reducing takeout benefits players who bet more, so it isn't fair to everyone, than there is no hope for you.

[twindouble]

I DO understand what you mean by churned money.

MY argument is dropping the takeout rate 1-2% is not going to mean a hill of beans in the long run.

The one thing I agree with HANA is when they boycott a certain bet or race when they think a takeout is too high. Good for them!

Let me ask YOU something..when Sam Houston lowered their takeout on certain bets (I forget the specifics..think it was Pick 3 or Pick 4 bets) to something like 10%, after the newness wore off, the handle was almost IDENTICAL to what it was when it was 20%.

WHy did that happen?

That was poor timing on their part from what I understand, plus there's only so many players left and money is tight. I had no idea that they dropped the takeout and I like the pick 4. That's their fault not mine, plus I would have to take the time to get to know the track. Like I said, I don't expect tracks to take less at this point. Savvy players are acutely aware of takeout, that's why we are pissed about the rebates others get.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Nope..just a fan. Never owned a horse in my life, though I have been offered shares of several different horses through the years. Owning a horse is like owning a boat. Might as well throw my money down the toilet.

So let me ask you..you seem to have all the answers..give me your top 3 ways you would improve horse racing. And no, lowering takeout to 1% is not an option.
The only chance horse racing has is to reduce the price of the gamble either through rebates or lowered takeout.

Anything else is futile...and it has been proven futile as execs have tried everything but reducing the price.

[DeanT]

26%-27%

If that doesn't work......30%-35%

:D

[Show Me the Wire]

Agree, that the rebate issue is a slippery slope. One that gives some an unfair advantage. But again, that is a completely different subject than lowering the track takeout rate.

True, but an important issue. You seem to feel a new person won't be attracted to the game because he has to pay a high cost to participate, right.

Well let's tell this new person not only do you have to pay a premium to play, but guess what, your bet (participation) is going to cost you more than some other person because the other person is receiving rebates on all his wagers.

What do you think your new recruit will say to that?

[The Paddock Room]

Sam Houston continues to have a 12% Pick 3. They should be advertising it like crazy.

I can tell you have no clue about takeout so I'll go slow here:

People don't gravitate to lower takeouts generally. It doesn't work that way. Though thanks to HANA more and more players are cognizant of it than ever before (before going on, make sure you understand what cognizant means, look it up if you have to).

So what happens is some players will be attracted to the bet, but what mostly happens is those who cash the bet, wind up cashing more than they would have if the takeout was 20 or 25%.

That extra money (believe it or not) is churned back. Not necessarily at Sam Houston either. Could go on another track.

But at least the players lucky enough to cash will last a bit longer so it should have a positive impact on total handle in North America, but since this is a rarity, it is hardly felt.

Your argument would hold more water if you didn't try to belittle the intended reader.

You need to stop drinking the HANA kool-aid and join the real world.

[Stillriledup]

Whatever floats your boats.
If rebates were eliminated tomorrow, handle would drop to 8 billion and continue to drop from there.

And no, rebates are a percentage. Let the percentage be the same for everyone.

If you don't get that this is the same as reducing takeout, you are lost too.

If you want to argue that reducing takeout benefits players who bet more, so it isn't fair to everyone, than there is no hope for you.

Most people who argue about rebates are usually the ones not getting them. The problem that i have with the argument that says "everyone should be entitled to the same rebate" is this. Why should racing be different from real life? In real life, if you are a high volume customer, you get better discounts. If you buy in bulk at Costco, you get better value that if you buy one roll of toilet paper from 7-11. The more you buy, the better 'price' you are quoted, that's how real life works.....even though some people who are not getting rebates seem to want things to be different.

If i went into a doughnut shop and ordered 200 doughnuts from the owner and he quoted me a price of 49 cents per doughnut, would you stamp your feet if you were on line behind me and wanted one doughnut and had to pay 79 cents? No, you would completely understand that one doughnut costs 79c and 200 of them cost 49 cents each. You would 'get it'. How come racing fans who bet 2 dollars don't 'get it' that people betting millions will get a bit of a discount?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Your argument would hold more water if you didn't try to belittle the intended reader.

You need to stop drinking the HANA kool-aid and join the real world.
Nice rebuttal from a hypocrite who came here and belittled horseplayers, though you are too thick to realize it.

[Show Me the Wire]

Whatever floats your boats.
If rebates were eliminated tomorrow, handle would drop to 8 billion and continue to drop from there.

And no, rebates are a percentage. Let the percentage be the same for everyone.

If you don't get that this is the same as reducing takeout, you are lost too.

If you want to argue that reducing takeout benefits players who bet more, so it isn't fair to everyone, than there is no hope for you.

Your argument is like the mercahnts that use to give discounts for cash purchases and charge full price for credit card purchases.

Eliminating a discount, for cash customers, is not the same as reducing the price (ake out) for everyone.

About the handle dropping 8 billion, you are saying nobody wants the product unless they receive a kickback of the purchase price.

Great eliminate rebates and drop take-out. Problem solved, the reduced take (sale for every one) out is the substitute for the cash discount (rebate).

I understand perfectly.

[The Paddock Room]

True, but an important issue. You seem to feel a new person won't be attracted to the game because he has to pay a high cost to participate, right.

Well let's tell this new person not only do you have to pay a premium to play, but guess what, your bet (participation) is going to cost you more than some other person because the other person is receiving rebates on all his wagers.

What do you think your new recruit will say to that?

Agree the inequality of rebates is skewing the game.

Sure it would be great to have 10% takeout and 0 rebates. or 20% takeout and 10% rebates.

But don't high-rollers get preferential treatment in most forms of gambling? You think Ivey or Hellmuth has to pay their $10,000 buy-in fee in the World Series of Poker? Nope, they have sponsors that pay all their buy-ins. You think whales don't get perks in Las Vegas? Dollar Video Poker machines will have a better payback than Nickle Video Poker machines, etc.

[Show Me the Wire]

Most people who argue about rebates are usually the ones not getting them. The problem that i have with the argument that says "everyone should be entitled to the same rebate" is this. Why should racing be different from real life? In real life, if you are a high volume customer, you get better discounts. If you buy in bulk at Costco, you get better value that if you buy one roll of toilet paper from 7-11. The more you buy, the better 'price' you are quoted, that's how real life works.....even though some people who are not getting rebates seem to want things to be different.

If i went into a doughnut shop and ordered 200 doughnuts from the owner and he quoted me a price of 49 cents per doughnut, would you stamp your feet if you were on line behind me and wanted one doughnut and had to pay 79 cents? No, you would completely understand that one doughnut costs 79c and 200 of them cost 49 cents each. You would 'get it'. How come racing fans who bet 2 dollars don't 'get it' that people betting millions will get a bit of a discount?

Simple reason, because when you make a wager are not a customer, but a participant in a pari-mutual pool. Your share of risk should not be reduced.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

would you stamp your feet if you were on line behind me and wanted one doughnut and had to pay 79 cents?

No.....I would go to a doughnut forum, post the story of what happened and argue how unfair it is.

[The Paddock Room]

Most people who argue about rebates are usually the ones not getting them. The problem that i have with the argument that says "everyone should be entitled to the same rebate" is this. Why should racing be different from real life? In real life, if you are a high volume customer, you get better discounts. If you buy in bulk at Costco, you get better value that if you buy one roll of toilet paper from 7-11. The more you buy, the better 'price' you are quoted, that's how real life works.....even though some people who are not getting rebates seem to want things to be different.

If i went into a doughnut shop and ordered 200 doughnuts from the owner and he quoted me a price of 49 cents per doughnut, would you stamp your feet if you were on line behind me and wanted one doughnut and had to pay 79 cents? No, you would completely understand that one doughnut costs 79c and 200 of them cost 49 cents each. You would 'get it'. How come racing fans who bet 2 dollars don't 'get it' that people betting millions will get a bit of a discount?

Bingo!!!

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Your argument is like the mercahnts that use to give discounts for cash purchases and charge full price for credit card purchases.

Eliminating a discount, for cash customers, is not the same as reducing the price (ake out) for everyone.

About the handle dropping 8 billion, you are saying nobody wants the product unless they receive a kickback of the purchase price.

Great eliminate rebates and drop take-out. Problem solved, the reduced take (sale for every one) out is the substitute for the cash discount (rebate).

I understand perfectly.
Actually, you don't have a clue either.

[The Paddock Room]

Nice rebuttal from a hypocrite who came here and belittled horseplayers, though you are too thick to realize it.

I belittled horseplayers? How did you deduce that, Sherlock?

Sorry if my opinions are different from yours..I thought that is what an internet horse racing forum is all about..my bad.

[Robert Goren]

There are not too many businesses that don't offer discounts to high volume customers.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

There are not too many businesses that don't offer discounts to high volume customers.

United States Postal Service

How are they doing?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I belittled horseplayers? How did you deduce that, Sherlock?

Sorry if my opinions are different from yours..I thought that is what an internet horse racing forum is all about..my bad.
Go back and read your posts about degenerate horseplayers who churn. Most horseplayers churn. That is what gamblers do.

[Show Me the Wire]

Agree the inequality of rebates is skewing the game.

Sure it would be great to have 10% takeout and 0 rebates. or 20% takeout and 10% rebates.

But don't high-rollers get preferential treatment in most forms of gambling? You think Ivey or Hellmuth has to pay their $10,000 buy-in fee in the World Series of Poker? Nope, they have sponsors that pay all their buy-ins. You think whales don't get perks in Las Vegas? Dollar Video Poker machines will have a better payback than Nickle Video Poker machines, etc.

Different types of gambling, one is against the house and they are customers of that establishment. See how fast you lose your comps if you stay at one property and continue to play at an unrelated property.

Also, I am sure the sponsors recoup their investments.

Racing is a pari-mutual risk pool. Wagering into a pari-mutual pool does not make you a customer, but a participant.

[rwwupl]

Nice rebuttal from a hypocrite who came here and belittled horseplayers, though you are too thick to realize it.



Sounds like a member of the regulating body of California, Ha HA Ha :)

A troll,seeing if he can catch a fish....enough

[twindouble]

Agree the inequality of rebates is skewing the game.

Sure it would be great to have 10% takeout and 0 rebates. or 20% takeout and 10% rebates.

But don't high-rollers get preferential treatment in most forms of gambling? You think Ivey or Hellmuth has to pay their $10,000 buy-in fee in the World Series of Poker? Nope, they have sponsors that pay all their buy-ins. You think whales don't get perks in Las Vegas? Dollar Video Poker machines will have a better payback than Nickle Video Poker machines, etc.

That's true but when poker players sit down at one table it's a level playing field or any other type of gambling at any casino, not so today with what was suposed to be pari-mutual gambling. Big difference in my mind when it comes obscene rebates within the mutuals.

I see you did agree the rebate system is skewed so should I conclude you agree with me on rebates and put it to rest?

[The Paddock Room]

Go back and read your posts about degenerate horseplayers who churn. Most horseplayers churn. That is what gamblers do.

You need to go back and read what I wrote. I was referring to the few compulsive gamblers that have to bet every dollar in their pockets. Not "most horseplayers".

[Robert Goren]

United States Postal Service

How are they doing?Actually they do offer discount to high volume mailers. They are doing only slightly better than NYRA.;)

[The Paddock Room]

Different types of gambling, one is against the house and they are customers of that establishment. See how fast you lose your comps if you stay at one property and continue to play at an unrelated property.

Also, I am sure the sponsors recoup their investments.

Racing is a pari-mutual risk pool. Wagering into a pari-mutual pool does not make you a customer, but a participant.

Really no different than my poker tournament example.

Poker tournaments are in essence "pari-mutual". The casino takes their cut off the top, and you are competing vs. the other players.

[The Paddock Room]

Sounds like a member of the regulating body of California, Ha HA Ha :)

A troll,seeing if he can catch a fish....enough

It amazes me how the HANAites are so quick to assume someone is a troll, if they don't follow the hardline of the organization.

HANA is like the right wing cult of horse racing..if you don't agree with us then you don't know anything about horse racing. If you don't drink our kool-aid you are not a true fan.

I bet HANA has done more HARM for the sport than GOOD..

[Charli125]

Lets examine that statement:

Player A has $200 in his pocket, and bets $20 per race.

So why would he bet the few extra dollars in his pocket he received by a racetrack having a lower takeout.

Not logical.

This makes it sound like horseplayers will bet every last dollar in their pocket, no matter the race or circumstance. Sure we all know some people like that on track, but they are in the minority.

Sorry this is late but there was a post a few pages back that I wanted to address.

That's a question that a lot of people ask. While it might seem illogical, take a look at the attachment and you can see what happens. Pay close attention to the bolded totals at the bottom, and you'll see the effect of takeout.

Basically I took 3 players, each with a $200 bankroll, rolling over their bankroll on each line, and losing just the takeout each time they roll over. This is not an example of blowing all of your money on one day at the track, it's an example of showing up at the track with $200 in your pocket and leaving with $160 at 20% takeout. Repeat that enough times, and you might decide to start playing poker.

The losing player is still going to lose their entire bankroll if they keep playing long enough, they're just going to lose it slower with low takeout, and thus be around for those winning moments that add excitement to the game and just might get a few more folks interested in racing. Plus, the tracks make more money.

Obviously there is an optimal level where the handle will not keep up with low takeouts and profits will drop, and obviously I don't know exactly where that is. Studies have shown though that it's around 12%.

Player A at 20%
Player B at 15%
Player C at 5%

Someone mentioned the Betfair model earlier in the thread so I added Player C to show that.

[Show Me the Wire]

Really no different than my poker tournament example.

Poker tournaments are in essence "pari-mutual". The casino takes their cut off the top, and you are competing vs. the other players.

But you don't get a rebate when you throw into the pot, and there is a buy-in to enter. Also, you just can't go to any active tournament at any property that day and particiapte at a discount.

Additionally if you have a sponsor, the sponsor is a third party that foots the costs for your buy-in.

I have no problem with a track taking its cut off the top, to fund purses, track maintenance, etc. So what is your point? You didn't say anything different than I have said.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

It amazes me how the HANAites are so quick to assume someone is a troll, if they don't follow the hardline of the organization.

HANA is like the right wing cult of horse racing..if you don't agree with us then you don't know anything about horse racing. If you don't drink our kool-aid you are not a true fan.

I bet HANA has done more HARM for the sport than GOOD..
HANA's intention is to help make it so that the game will grow exponentially. HANA is not the reason the game is dying. The games failure to compete for gamblers is the main reason the game is spiraling to the ground.

Don't shoot the messenger.

All attempts to grow the game without addressing the high price of the gamble has been attempted throughout the years, and it has been a predictable failure.

[The Paddock Room]

But you don't get a rebate when you throw into the pot, and there is a buy-in to enter. Also, you just can't go to any active tournament at any property that day and particiapte at a discount.

Additionally if you have a sponsor, the sponsor is a third party that foots the costs for your buy-in.

I have no problem with a track taking its cut off the top, to fund purses, track maintenance, etc. So what is your point? You didn't say anything different than I have said.

I just meant that it's not an even playing field in Poker either.

[Stillriledup]

Simple reason, because when you make a wager are not a customer, but a participant in a pari-mutual pool. Your share of risk should not be reduced.

But you're a customer in the sense that you are 'purchasing' a product and making the business you are purchasing it from a profit. The more you purchase, the more money you make them. I still need more data to prove to me that a bettor who 'buys' a product from a racetrack isn't a customer and he's somehow a 'participant'.

Not all 'participants' are created equal.

[Robert Goren]

For the record some online poker sites offer rebates. They all have some sort of rewards program.

[Stillriledup]

It amazes me how the HANAites are so quick to assume someone is a troll, if they don't follow the hardline of the organization.

HANA is like the right wing cult of horse racing..if you don't agree with us then you don't know anything about horse racing. If you don't drink our kool-aid you are not a true fan.

I bet HANA has done more HARM for the sport than GOOD..

The hardline? The only think HANA cares about is that horseplayers have a voice. What agenda do you personally have that you don't want to see the average working class horseplayer get a fair break? If you're against HANA and what they stand for, you're basically not behind the average horseplayer and his needs and wants.

[Show Me the Wire]

But you're a customer in the sense that you are 'purchasing' a product and making the business you are purchasing it from a profit. The more you purchase, the more money you make them. I still need more data to prove to me that a bettor who 'buys' a product from a racetrack isn't a customer and he's somehow a 'participant'.

Not all 'participants' are created equal.

You are a participant in a pari-mutual pool, you are a customer of a bookmaker. Understand the difference?

What product are you purchasing when you wager into a pari-mutual pool?

[Stillriledup]

You are a participant in a pari-mutual pool, you are a customer of a bookmaker. Understand the difference?

What product are you purchasing when you wager into a pari-mutual pool?

But that bookmaker doesn't view the 2 dollar bettor the same as the million dollar bettor. One guy makes them 200k, the 2 dollar bettor makes them 20 cents. Because of the difference in the amount of money one person makes over the other, the bookmaker has incentive to keep that 200k guy happy and content moreso than the 2 dollar bettor. Sure, he wants everyone to be happy, but he wants the 200k guy to be HAPPIER.

[rwwupl]

It amazes me how the HANAites are so quick to assume someone is a troll, if they don't follow the hardline of the organization.

HANA is like the right wing cult of horse racing..if you don't agree with us then you don't know anything about horse racing. If you don't drink our kool-aid you are not a true fan.

I bet HANA has done more HARM for the sport than GOOD..



Again ,Why are you here? What is your message?

No one cares if you dis agree, unless you have a better message...What is it?

Are you saying everything is good and horse racing is on the right path to success ? If you do not have a better message, you are wasting our time(and yours too).

Take a deep breath and spit it out.

[The Paddock Room]

HANA's intention is to help make it so that the game will grow exponentially. HANA is not the reason the game is dying. The games failure to compete for gamblers is the main reason the game is spiraling to the ground.

Don't shoot the messenger.

All attempts to grow the game without addressing the high price of the gamble has been attempted throughout the years, and it has been a predictable failure.

I mentioned that in one of my earlier posts. Horse racing hasn't EVER really competed for gamblers. They didn't need to up until the early 80's. Then with Indian casinos, the internet, etc. they are the ones that got the sport behind the 8 ball.

I believe HANA's guerrilla tactics aren't doing much in the way of change. Yeah a little here, a little there..but seriously what significant changes have they accomplished in 2 years? What about the next 5 years?

HANA, like any interest group, is out for themselves. To improve their members "bottom line". NOT to "improve the sport" or to bring new fans to horse racing.

I just wish they would be more upfront of their intentions.

[Stillriledup]

I mentioned that in one of my earlier posts. Horse racing hasn't EVER really competed for gamblers. They didn't need to up until the early 80's. Then with Indian casinos, the internet, etc. they are the ones that got the sport behind the 8 ball.

I believe HANA's guerrilla tactics aren't doing much in the way of change. Yeah a little here, a little there..but seriously what significant changes have they accomplished in 2 years? What about the next 5 years?

HANA, like any interest group, is out for themselves. To improve their members "bottom line". NOT to "improve the sport" or to bring new fans to horse racing.

I just wish they would be more upfront of their intentions.

If HANA is 'out for themselves' and hasn't done 'anything' yet, why are you so concerned that they be 'up front' with their intentions? Does an elephant ask the fly on his back what his (the flys) intentions are?

[The Paddock Room]

HANA is like the guy who lives in Canada and flies to Illinois to buy a Dodge Van. Why go all the way there when you can get one in your own backyard?

Good intentions, but poor execution.

[Show Me the Wire]

But that bookmaker doesn't view the 2 dollar bettor the same as the million dollar bettor. One guy makes them 200k, the 2 dollar bettor makes them 20 cents. Because of the difference in the amount of money one person makes over the other, the bookmaker has incentive to keep that 200k guy happy and content moreso than the 2 dollar bettor. Sure, he wants everyone to be happy, but he wants the 200k guy to be HAPPIER.


True, that is why you are his customer and you get customer service. BUt again you are wagering on the odds set by the boolmaker and not particiapting in a pari-mutual pool.

In a pari-mutual field there are no customers only participants and a third party that holds the funds for the mutual benefit of all the parties and distributes the pool according to the pre-set rules.

In a pari-mutual pool you the participant pays for a service to protect your investment and to insure it is distributed accordingly. The track holds the pari-mutual pool money and disperses it according to the pre-set rules.

The track is entitled to charge a uniform fee for this service and the cost of this fee should be equally shared. Giving people rebates is the same as discounting for cash and charging extra for credit card sales. Actually the case could be made that the more you wager, you should pay a higher cost or escrow fee for your protection insurance.

[rwwupl]

I mentioned that in one of my earlier posts. Horse racing hasn't EVER really competed for gamblers. They didn't need to up until the early 80's. Then with Indian casinos, the internet, etc. they are the ones that got the sport behind the 8 ball.

I believe HANA's guerrilla tactics aren't doing much in the way of change. Yeah a little here, a little there..but seriously what significant changes have they accomplished in 2 years? What about the next 5 years?

HANA, like any interest group, is out for themselves. To improve their members "bottom line". NOT to "improve the sport" or to bring new fans to horse racing.

I just wish they would be more upfront of their intentions.





I just wish you would be upfront with your intentions!

Have you done your homework and read the HANA website and their agenda?

If so, please explain what do you take issue with?

Your general tone tells me that you are a mis informed troll.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I just wish they would be more upfront of their intentions.
It is to grow the game. Growing the game means that any horseplayer who does enough research and has some luck going for them, has a fighting chance to actually win money long term. This will attract even more horseplayers.

It is much like an owners group that wants the game to grow (they need the game to grow so that purses will increase) so that some owners will have a chance to possibly make a living off owning horses, or at least more owners will break even. This will attract even more owners.

[johnhannibalsmith]

HANA, like any interest group, is out for themselves. To improve their members "bottom line". NOT to "improve the sport" or to bring new fans to horse racing.

I just wish they would be more upfront of their intentions.

Good intentions, but poor execution.

So in your opinion, their (HANA's) intention to improve the member's bottom line, but not help the sport is a good plan, but one that has merely been poorly executed?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

True, that is why you are his customer and you get customer service. BUt again you are wagering on the odds set by the boolmaker and not particiapting in a pari-mutual pool.

In a pari-mutual field there are no customers only participants and a third party that holds the funds for the mutual benefit of all the parties and distributes the pool according to the pre-set rules.

In a pari-mutual pool you the participant pays for a service to protect your investment and to insure it is distributed accordingly. The track holds the pari-mutual pool money and disperses it according to the pre-set rules.

The track is entitled to charge a uniform fee for this service and the cost of this fee should be equally shared. Giving people rebates is the same as discounting for cash and charging extra for credit card sales. Actually the case could be made that the more you wager, you should pay a higher cost or escrow fee for your protection insurance.

I have questions for you.

1. Do you honestly think that racing will grow if rebates are eliminated?

2. Do you think that race tracks will get together and cut takeouts to a 15% maximum?

3. If rebates are eliminated and takeout remains at the 20% level, do you think there is any reason for young people to play? do you honestly think that people will have a chance at making a living betting horses like some do playing poker?

4. Can you not see that the existence of rebates allows for the possibility that the game can be beaten, and therefore, there is growth potential because many gamblers keep that in mind as to why they play today?

[Deepsix]

It's been interesting to follow this thread throughout the day EVEN THOUGH there haven't been any new issues raised.

[Show Me the Wire]

I have questions for you.

1. Do you honestly think that racing will grow if rebates are eliminated?

2. Do you think that race tracks will get together and cut takeouts to a 15% maximum?

3. If rebates are eliminated and takeout remains at the 20% level, do you think there is any reason for young people to play? do you honestly think that people will have a chance at making a living betting horses like some do playing poker?

4. Can you not see that the existence of rebates allows for the possibility that the game can be beaten, and therefore, there is growth potential because many gamblers keep that in mind as to why they play today?

You answer my question first, from post 92.

You seem to feel a new person won't be attracted to the game because he has to pay a high cost to participate, right.

Well let's tell this new person not only do you have to pay a premium to play, but guess what, your bet (participation) is going to cost you more than some other person because the other person is receiving rebates on all his wagers.

What do you think your new recruit will say to that?

[twindouble]

It's been interesting to follow this thread throughout the day EVEN THOUGH there haven't been any new issues raised.

LOL, that's one thing we don't need, we have enough on our plate.

[twindouble]

You answer my question first, from post 92.

You seem to feel a new person won't be attracted to the game because he has to pay a high cost to participate, right.

Well let's tell this new person not only do you have to pay a premium to play, but guess what, your bet (participation) is going to cost you more than some other person because the other person is receiving rebates on all his wagers.

What do you think your new recruit will say to that?

We can always tell him he has to be a minnow first, then became a multimillion dollar whale. LOL>

[Horseplayersbet.com]

You answer my question first, from post 92.

You seem to feel a new person won't be attracted to the game because he has to pay a high cost to participate, right.

Well let's tell this new person not only do you have to pay a premium to play, but guess what, your bet (participation) is going to cost you more than some other person because the other person is receiving rebates on all his wagers.

What do you think your new recruit will say to that?
A new player is capable of receiving a discount on many tracks. Betfair is legal for Canadians, and new players are attracted by the low price and the chance of winning money long term.

But lets get real, if a new player was given the goods that if you are good enough you can be a whale too and that many do make a living at it, I think that is at least incentive to start figuring out what a racing form is.

I don't think that right now the fact rebates exist, are a deterrent at all to new players.

Now kindly answer my questions.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

We can always tell him he has to be a minnow first, then became a multimillion dollar whale. LOL>

It really isn't that funny. People who start playing poker online do the exact same thing.

Players who start at Betfair have to overcome about double the rate, but they know if they start to become good, the rate will drop .

[Show Me the Wire]

I have questions for you.

1. Do you honestly think that racing will grow if rebates are eliminated?

2. Do you think that race tracks will get together and cut takeouts to a 15% maximum?

3. If rebates are eliminated and takeout remains at the 20% level, do you think there is any reason for young people to play? do you honestly think that people will have a chance at making a living betting horses like some do playing poker?

4. Can you not see that the existence of rebates allows for the possibility that the game can be beaten, and therefore, there is growth potential because many gamblers keep that in mind as to why they play today?

Okay, now I have your frame of reference. It is about growing pools and not really attracting younger players.

If you want to grow pools for awhile rebates are the way to go, but just like the slots mania, it won't help in the long run.

If you can beat the game you don't need rebates. Telling prospective new blood, that they will need rebates to beat the game is a terrible message.

Actually, I think more people make a living betting horses than playing poker. The difference is poker players seek and want attention and the horse players are secure in their obscurity.

[Stillriledup]

Okay, now I have your frame of reference. It is about growing pools and not really attracting younger players.

If you want to grow pools for awhile rebates are the way to go, but just like the slots mania, it won't help in the long run.

If you can beat the game you don't need rebates. Telling prospective new blood, that they will need rebates to beat the game is a terrible message.

Actually, I think more people make a living betting horses than playing poker. The difference is poker players seek and want attention and the horse players are secure in their obscurity.

Who's telling prospective new blood that they need rebates to beat the game? In fact, you can make the case that rebates for big players HELP the smaller player in more ways than one. They help by adding padding to the pools and they help in the sense that rebate players could theoretically be more reckless with their wagers. I can't imagine that a guy getting a massive rebate is skipping too many races.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Okay, now I have your frame of reference. It is about growing pools and not really attracting younger players.

If you want to grow pools for awhile rebates are the way to go, but just like the slots mania, it won't help in the long run.

If you can beat the game you don't need rebates. Telling prospective new blood, that they will need rebates to beat the game is a terrible message.

Actually, I think more people make a living betting horses than playing poker. The difference is poker players seek and want attention and the horse players are secure in their obscurity.
No, it is about growing the game. Bigger pools means bigger potential pay days for individuals who might brag about hitting them.

Rebates keep players in the game longer, and the longer they play the more likely they are to expose friends to horse racing.


You are wrong about people making a living betting horses, if you think they are doing it without rebates.
I don't think it is a bad message to tell young people that they can beat the game if they are good enough to get rebates.

Take away rebates and pools with shrivel up, and less people will be attracted to horse racing than ever before.

Again, you didn't say how eliminating rebates will grow the game?????

[Show Me the Wire]

Who's telling prospective new blood that they need rebates to beat the game? In fact, you can make the case that rebates for big players HELP the smaller player in more ways than one. They help by adding padding to the pools and they help in the sense that rebate players could theoretically be more reckless with their wagers. I can't imagine that a guy getting a massive rebate is skipping too many races.


I was responding to this statement by Horseplayersbet.com:

4. Can you not see that the existence of rebates allows for the possibility that the game can be beaten, and therefore, there is growth potential because many gamblers keep that in mind as to why they play today?

Ask him why he said it.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Who's telling prospective new blood that they need rebates to beat the game? In fact, you can make the case that rebates for big players HELP the smaller player in more ways than one. They help by adding padding to the pools and they help in the sense that rebate players could theoretically be more reckless with their wagers. I can't imagine that a guy getting a massive rebate is skipping too many races.

True whales do cost all players a percentage point or so because they don't recklessly play, but only play specific bets that give them a theoretical edge after rebate. That could mean lots of different combos a race, but in the long run, without whales, players would last a little longer.

That being said, without whales there would be even less interest in horse racing today than there is right now.

Those shooting to be whales would cut back their betting (obviously what drove whales out would be bad for anyone else getting rebates).

It is like a poker game. The whale is an astute poker player, when he has an edge the pots go up, and the fact he exists, causes all pots to go up as others want to emulate him.

This poker player plays against 8 lesser players. The pots are usually good with or without him on the flop.

Take the whale out, and the other 8 players start seeing lesser pots. 2 of them decide to quit because the pots just aren't worth it anymore.

[Show Me the Wire]

No, it is about growing the game. Bigger pools means bigger potential pay days for individuals who might brag about hitting them.

Rebates keep players in the game longer, and the longer they play the more likely they are to expose friends to horse racing.


You are wrong about people making a living betting horses, if you think they are doing it without rebates.
I don't think it is a bad message to tell young people that they can beat the game if they are good enough to get rebates.

Take away rebates and pools with shrivel up, and less people will be attracted to horse racing than ever before.

Again, you didn't say how eliminating rebates will grow the game?????


As I said your focus is on growing pools, that is all you are talking about in the above.

Let's set our frame of reference. Yes, growing the game can mean larger pools from other sources or it can mean attracting the younger generation to learn and particiapte.

When I say growing the game, I specifically mean new blood from the younger generations and not siphoning existing gambling money away from other sources of gambling through rebates.

Sooner or later that siphoned money will leave and the sport will be in worse straights.

I fail to see how larger pools, garnered through rebates will attract young blood into the game.

Maybe pools need to shrivel up, sometimes there needs to be contraction before expansion.

I'll tell you one benefit of not having rebates is the return of fairer odds. Horses won't be hammered into the unbetable territory that rebate wagering allows.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

As I said your focus is on growing pools, that is all you are talking about in the above.

Let's set our frame of reference. Yes, growing the game can mean larger pools from other sources or it can mean attracting the younger generation to learn and particiapte.

When I say growing the game, I specifically mean new blood from the younger generations and not siphoning existing gambling money away from other sources of gambling through rebates.

Sooner or later that siphoned money will leave and the sport will be in worse straights.

I fail to see how larger pools, garnered through rebates will attract young blood into the game.

Maybe pools need to shrivel up, sometimes there needs to be contraction before expansion.

Again, the longer existing players last, the more likely they are to attract others, friends, family and coworkers to play. Simple. There you have growth.

And of course, the longer a player plays the less they play other games of chance, so they wind up actually risking more and in most cases losing more, which of course means more growth for horsemen and tracks.

Do you think it is better if the ADW or track just keeps all the money it could otherwise rebate? How is that not siphoning money from the players. At least those who give rebates give players more to play with and keep them in the game.

Now tell me how you think growth can occur.

[Show Me the Wire]

Not siphoning from the players, siphoning away from other gambling events. That is the argument you make for rebates. You say without rebates the money will disappear. Well where did it appear from? It had to come from other gambling events than horse racing.

If not then your whole argument is fallacious

I think the money the track rebates, should go into upkeep and making the facility a place that is a desirable destination, to attract more people.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Not siphoning from the players, siphoning away from other gambling events. That is the argument you make for rebates. You say without rebates the money will disappear. Well where did it appear from? It had to come from other gambling events than horse racing.

If not then your whole argument is fallacious
I think the money the track rebates, should go into upkeep and making the facility a place that is a desirable destination, to attract more people.


Your argument that siphoned money will eventually leave is not correct. It means some young people will now focus on horse racing instead of poker or sports betting for example with their expendable income. And many will become long term players.

What I am saying, and try to follow, is that by giving rebates (or cutting takeouts), players will last longer. The longer they last, the more likely they will be asked by friends what they do with their spare time, for example. More people will be exposed because this person is getting a good bang for his entertainment dollar. He might actually be winning now, or at least thinking he can win if gets just a little better at it. He cuts back on betting sports and focuses more money to just horse racing. If he has kids they see what daddy is doing, and the odd kid will get real interested.

This is called growing the game.

How do you propose to grow the game?

Stronach tried to beautify the tracks. It didn't work. Horse racing needs gamblers not a garden club.

[twindouble]

I would be honest to any new player like I always have. I tell them there are players out there that pay a hell of lot less than you will in takeout because they get huge rebates that you won't get. Plus the tracks cater to them with lousy conditions so they can create carryovers for those people with money. You won't have a shot in hell to hit the big payoff unless you can afford to put in a lot of money. You would have to be awful dam lucky to hit one. Then I would tell him there's other tracks and pools were you can make a buck in spite of the thieves. Oh yes, I would tell him he will get some points that don't amount to squat when you cash them but you can trade them for other stuff you don't need except the DRF.

[Show Me the Wire]

Your argument that siphoned money will eventually leave is not correct. It means some young people will now focus on horse racing instead of poker or sports betting for example with their expendable income. And many will become long term players.




Why won't it leave, because you said so? History has shown repeatedly that money has left pari-mutual wagering on a large scale level for other forms of gambling or entertainment. There is a very good possibility that this money will leave too, for other as to now unknown opportunities.

The rest of your post is pure conjecture and speculation on your part without any basis. At its best it is wishful thinking.

[Stillriledup]

Answer this question.

Rebate shops wouldn't have ever existed in the first place if.....

[Stillriledup]

I would be honest to any new player like I always have. I tell them there are players out there that pay a hell of lot less than you will in takeout because they get huge rebates that you won't get. Plus the tracks cater to them with lousy conditions so they can create carryovers for those people with money. You won't have a shot in hell to hit the big payoff unless you can afford to put in a lot of money. You would have to be awful dam lucky to hit one. Then I would tell him there's other tracks and pools were you can make a buck in spite of the thieves. Oh yes, I would tell him he will get some points that don't amount to squat when you cash them but you can trade them for other stuff you don't need except the DRF.


But, after you tell them that players pay a hell of a lot less than they will, you do mention that they too can secure their own rebate if they're really sharp and can grow their bankroll to a high enough amount to be able to bet millions of dollars per year. You do explain to them that if they have the money they too can get huge rebates? You say that, right?

When you tell people they don't have a shot to hit a pick payoff in a pick 6 you also add that there are bets like pick 4s and pick 3s that are very hittable for those looking to invest 20's and 40s? You do add that at the end, don't you?

[twindouble]

Answer this question.

Rebate shops wouldn't have ever existed in the first place if.....

the tracks didn't give away their signals.

[twindouble]

But, after you tell them that players pay a hell of a lot less than they will, you do mention that they too can secure their own rebate if they're really sharp and can grow their bankroll to a high enough amount to be able to bet millions of dollars per year. You do explain to them that if they have the money they too can get huge rebates? You say that, right?

When you tell people they don't have a shot to hit a pick payoff in a pick 6 you also add that there are bets like pick 4s and pick 3s that are very hittable for those looking to invest 20's and 40s? You do add that at the end, don't you?



No, I wouldn't feed them all that bull, they would have no respect for me when all is said and done.

[Stillriledup]

the tracks didn't give away their signals.


True.

I remember there was a point in time where if you weren't at the live racetrack, you couldnt make a bet. Imagine if we were back there today and your only competition was the people who were physically at the live racetrack? Aah, those were the days.

[Stillriledup]

No, I wouldn't feed them all that bull, they would have no respect for me when all is said and done.

And what 'bull' would that be? What did i say that's untrue?

[twindouble]

And what 'bull' would that be? What did i say that's untrue?

All of it in my opinion. You can believe what you want, that don't mean I have to buy into it. What I said I believe is the truth.

[twindouble]

True.

I remember there was a point in time where if you weren't at the live racetrack, you couldnt make a bet. Imagine if we were back there today and your only competition was the people who were physically at the live racetrack? Aah, those were the days.

I have over the years like I said, excepted inovation and change but I'm not going to sucked into thinking those rebates are fair in any way. Try someone else.

[Show Me the Wire]

I have over the years like I said, excepted inovation and change but I'm not going to sucked into thinking those rebates are fair in any way. Try someone else.

:ThmbUp:

[Stillriledup]

All of it in my opinion. You can believe what you want, that don't mean I have to buy into it. What I said I believe is the truth.

What i said is that rebates are available to anyone who can prove he or she can sustain a large betting handle. Do you believe that somehow rebates are closed to only a privileged few and that if the rebate shops don't like your color, religion or sexual orientation they will just refuse your business? I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. Is this what you believe to be true?

[twindouble]

What i said is that rebates are available to anyone who can prove he or she can sustain a large betting handle. Do you believe that somehow rebates are closed to only a privileged few and that if the rebate shops don't like your color, religion or sexual orientation they will just refuse your business? I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. Is this what you believe to be true?

Heaven available to everyone if you believe Christianity.

[Charlie D]

Heaven available to everyone if you believe Christianity.


:)

[Stillriledup]

Heaven available to everyone if you believe Christianity.

:bang:

[twindouble]

:bang:


I don't mean to cause you any pain, we just disagree. That's all, leave it at that.

[Stillriledup]

I don't mean to cause you any pain, we just disagree. That's all, leave it at that.

Its ok to disagree, you seem like a smart fellow, i was just wanting a little more in depth discussion on your opinion. If you don't want to go into it any further, i respect that, consider it 'left at that'.

[twindouble]

Its ok to disagree, you seem like a smart fellow, i was just wanting a little more in depth discussion on your opinion. If you don't want to go into it any further, i respect that, consider it 'left at that'.

Why would you want an in depth conversation on something so simple to understand. I think the issue is back and white and you think there's a lot of grays or your creating a lot of grays. To me it's a matter of fairness and rebates are an assault on the pari-mutual system.

No I didn't graduate from Harvard but I'm into my 50th year playing the horses, so I would like to think I have something of value to say about horse racing.

[Show Me the Wire]

Here is the common definition of pari-mutuel wagering.

par•i-mu•tu•el
   ˌpær ɪˈmyu tʃu əlShow Spelled[par-i-myoo-choo-uh l] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a form of betting and of handling the betting on horse races at racetracks, in which those holding winning tickets divide the total amount bet in proportion to their wagers, less a percentage for the management, taxes, etc

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Pari-mutuel

The specific key to this form of betting is dividing the net amount in proportion to the participants wagers. Throwing in a discount factor, the rebate, violates the in proportion to their wagers requirement. The rebate makes the pari-mutuel pool unbalanced, which is reflected in the artificially low odds, because the wagers are no longer in proportion.

[Stillriledup]

Here is the common definition of pari-mutuel wagering.

par•i-mu•tu•el
   ˌpær ɪˈmyu tʃu əlShow Spelled[par-i-myoo-choo-uh l] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a form of betting and of handling the betting on horse races at racetracks, in which those holding winning tickets divide the total amount bet in proportion to their wagers, less a percentage for the management, taxes, etc

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Pari-mutuel

The specific key to this form of betting is dividing the net amount in proportion to the participants wagers. Throwing in a discount factor, the rebate, violates the in proportion to their wagers requirement. The rebate makes the pari-mutuel pool unbalanced, which is reflected in the artificially low odds, because the wagers are no longer in proportion.


The fundamental flaw in this logic is that it assumes that life is fair. Also, the problem is that the pari mutuel system as its set up in America is run by companies who are in business to make a profit. Now, if these were run by non profit organizations who only cared about being fair, than you would have a very strong case. But, they're run by companies who are using every waking minute of every day to figure out how to make as much money as they can. Their existence depends on making money ahead of being fair.

Is there anything in life that's fair? Is it fair that the NY Yankees are spending 200 million for players while some teams are spending 40 million? Is it fair if a rich kid's dad buys him a porsche for his senior year of high school and he gets to date the head cheerleader because of it? Is that fair to the kid who's parents are poor and can't even buy him a skateboard? Of course its not fair. Is it fair when someone's relative gets them a good job when there are more qualified candidates? Of course not, but nepotism runs wild in our society, none of it is fair. I could go on for hours and days about the unfairness of stuff out there.

[thaskalos]

The fundamental flaw in this logic is that it assumes that life is fair. Also, the problem is that the pari mutuel system as its set up in America is run by companies who are in business to make a profit. Now, if these were run by non profit organizations who only cared about being fair, than you would have a very strong case. But, they're run by companies who are using every waking minute of every day to figure out how to make as much money as they can. Their existence depends on making money ahead of being fair.

Is there anything in life that's fair? Is it fair that the NY Yankees are spending 200 million for players while some teams are spending 40 million? Is it fair if a rich kid's dad buys him a porsche for his senior year of high school and he gets to date the head cheerleader because of it? Is that fair to the kid who's parents are poor and can't even buy him a skateboard? Of course its not fair. Is it fair when someone's relative gets them a good job when there are more qualified candidates? Of course not, but nepotism runs wild in our society, none of it is fair. I could go on for hours and days about the unfairness of stuff out there. I don't care that the people running this game make a good profit. That's what they are in business for. I also don't care that they give rebates to their best customers. I all lines of business, the best customers are given better treatment than the smaller, less frequent patrons. What bothers me is that some of that profit that they have made over the last 100 years, has not been re-invested into this game to make it a little easier for the horseplayer to survive.

The computer systems that are in use at the racetracks are ancient, which accounts for all these odds changes that cause havoc as the races are run - not to mention the numerous cases of post-betting that has undermined the integrity of the sport.

The laboratories are terribly underfunded and cannot possibly keep in step with all the "designer" drugs that find their way to this game.

Finally, look at the quality of racing information that the horseplayer has at his disposal as he searches for a winning horse. In the 21st century, and the Racing Form, the "bible" of the industry, still times horseraces in fifths of a second? The running lines are still made up by people looking at the races through a set of binoculars?

In 1994, in his book "Beyer On Speed", Andy Beyer stated that the technology was in place for the timing of horses to move into the 21st century. Micro chips would be placed in the bridles of the horses, which, as the race is run, would trigger sensors that would be placed at the different points of call. The horseplayer would finally have the true times of every horse, at every point of call. It didn't seem especially costly, and it has been 16 years...what happened.

I'll tell you what happend. If it's a change that mainly benefits the horseplayer, nobody wants to pay for it, regardless of cost...and it never happens. For many years now, full card simulcasting has increased the mutual handle of every track in the country, and the extra money has all gone for higher purses. The horse player has not benefited in the least. Now the tracks are all begging the politicians for slots...and later it will be for full scale casinos. Do you think that the "slot money" will benefit the horseplayer? HELL NO!! Look at Philadelphia Park. A thriving slot business and still they shamelessly take 30% from the trifecta pools.

How can any business survive, good economy or bad, if it completely ignores the plight of its customers?

[DeanT]

What bothers me is that some of that profit that they have made over the last 100 years, has not been re-invested into this game to make it a little easier for the horseplayer to survive.

The computer systems that are in use at the racetracks are ancient, which accounts for all these odds changes that cause havoc as the races are run - not to mention the numerous cases of post-betting that has undermined the integrity of the sport.

The laboratories are terribly underfunded and cannot possibly keep in step with all the "designer" drugs that find their way to this game.

Finally, look at the quality of racing information that the horseplayer has at his disposal as he searches for a winning horse. In the 21st century, and the Racing Form, the "bible" of the industry, still times horseraces in fifths of a second? The running lines are still made up by people looking at the races through a set of binoculars?

In 1994, in his book "Beyer On Speed", Andy Beyer stated that the technology was in place for the timing of horses to move to the 21st century. Micro chips would be placed in the bridles of the horses, which, as the race is run, would trigger sensors that would be placed at the different points of call. The horseplayer would finally have the true times of every horse, at every point of call. It didn't seem especially costly, and it has been 16 years...what happened.

I'll tell you what happend. If it's a change that mainly benefits the horseplayer, nobody wants to pay for it...and it never happens. For many years now, full card simulcasting has increased the mutual handle of every track in the country, and the extra money has all gone for higher purses. The horse player has not benefited in the least. Now the tracks are all begging the politicians for slots...and later it will be for full scale casinos. Do you think that the "slot money" will benefit the horseplayer? HELL NO!! Look at Philadelphia Park. A thriving slot business and still they shamelessly take 30% from the trifecta pools.

How can any business survive, good economy or bad, if it completely ignores the plight of its customers?

Pace gets mad if we only use emoticons, but to hell with him :)

All I have to say to that post is ....... :ThmbUp:

[rwwupl]

Pace gets mad if we only use emoticons, but to hell with him :)

All I have to say to that post is ....... :ThmbUp:


Count me in :ThmbUp: :)

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I'll settle for exact final times for all horses. I think the technology might be out there somewhere. They use it in the Olympics. They even use it for quarter horses.

The same goes for wind as well. Why not state the wind if it was over 5 mph.
Either a stretch wind or a backstretch wind.

This would be great for pace handicappers especially. Might even spur on some new handicapping books.

[Show Me the Wire]

The fundamental flaw in this logic is that it assumes that life is fair. Also, the problem is that the pari mutuel system as its set up in America is run by companies who are in business to make a profit. Now, if these were run by non profit organizations who only cared about being fair, than you would have a very strong case. But, they're run by companies who are using every waking minute of every day to figure out how to make as much money as they can. Their existence depends on making money ahead of being fair.

Is there anything in life that's fair? Is it fair that the NY Yankees are spending 200 million for players while some teams are spending 40 million? Is it fair if a rich kid's dad buys him a porsche for his senior year of high school and he gets to date the head cheerleader because of it? Is that fair to the kid who's parents are poor and can't even buy him a skateboard? Of course its not fair. Is it fair when someone's relative gets them a good job when there are more qualified candidates? Of course not, but nepotism runs wild in our society, none of it is fair. I could go on for hours and days about the unfairness of stuff out there.


It has nothing to do with fairness. The fundamental flaw is not recognizing the differences in gambling platforms.

The tracks collect their profits, from the pari-mutuel platform from take out, nothing wrong with that. The problem with rebates is the pool is no longer proprtional to risk, which is by definition pari-mutuel wagering and thus artificially lowers the return on wager.

I have no problem about a bookmaker giving his preferred customers better odds, because his giving a better to deal does not effect what odds I would be satisfied to receive form the same bookmaker or another.

However, in a pari-mutuel pool, we are all equal participants and not customers and we should share proportionally.

Maybe the time has come to change the wagering platform in racing.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

In the stock market we are equal participants too. But if you buy $500 worth of stock, you are looking at a much higher % commission than if you buy $50,000 worth of stock.

Do you have the same problem with this as you do with rebates, Show?

[twindouble]

In the stock market we are equal participants too. But if you buy $500 worth of stock, you are looking at a much higher % commission than if you buy $50,000 worth of stock.

Do you have the same problem with this as you do with rebates, Show?

The pari-mutual system wasn't meant to be like the stock market. Players pay their commission to the tracks on every dollar bet via takeout. No one is entitled to pay a lesser commission.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

The pari-mutual system wasn't meant to be like the stock market. Players pay their commission to the tracks on every dollar bet via takeout. No one is entitled to pay a lesser commission.
Systems evolve. Things change. When you state "no one is entitled to pay a lesser commission" you are being totally subjective.

Not only that but you aren't dealing with reality either :)

Many people here say that those who bet more are entitled to a lower commission. And it seems the system is in agreement with them.

[twindouble]

Systems evolve. Things change. When you state "no one is entitled to pay a lesser commission" you are being totally subjective.

Not only that but you aren't dealing with reality either :)

Many people here say that those who bet more are entitled to a lower commission. And it seems the system is in agreement with them.

Like I said, destroying the mutual system is asking for problems. When all players, not just here get the truth, they won't be happy campers. I just want to be around when it all falls apart. There's better ways to bring in new players.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Like I said, destroying the mutual system is asking for problems. When all players, not just here get the truth, they won't be happy campers. I just want to be around when it all falls apart. There's better ways to bring in new players.
You are making up an excuse that doesn't exist. Sorry. I've yet to hear anyone say they quit or cut back because whales exist, or rebaters exist.

In fact, almost everyone gives rebates these days. Some a lot less than others.

Look at Woodbine's ADW rebate chart:

http://www.horseplayerinteractive.com/discover/takeoutadjust.aspx

It is minuscule, but according to you, it is against the laws of nature or something like that.

I've never heard anyone complain about Woodbine that those who bet more shouldn't get a bigger break, only that the rewards are too small period for every level.

[Show Me the Wire]

For us simple people, a simple observation. Casino's comp good customers. Perks include rooms, food, etc.

The perks stop at the gaming tables, except for drinks. The valued customer is not allowed to wager less than the table minimim (in fact they are expected to wager large) and collect on winning events as if he bet the full amount. Why? Is it because the house does not want to artificially change the odds to favor the better customer? artificially, changing the odds is not a good thing for the house, so the casino won't lessen their edge through rebates on their games.

By giving rebates you artificially change the odds, especially in the pari-mutuel pools. Of course the ADW service doesn't care about artificially changing the odds, because the ADW is paying off with other people's money. If the ADW service was putting up its own money to pay off winning bets, there would no such thing as rebates and this discussion would never take place.

This is a specific reason why horse wagering is suffering. Odds are being artificially depressed, so a third party can make money. The resulting payoffs on winning bets is to low to compensate the vast majority of the wagering public to learn and participate in horse wagering.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

For us simple people, a simple observation. Casino's comp good customers. Perks include rooms, food, etc.

The perks stop at the gaming tables, except for drinks. The valued customer is not allowed to wager less than the table minimim (in fact they are expected to wager large) and collect on winning events as if he bet the full amount. Why? Is it because the house does not want to artificially change the odds to favor the better customer? artificially, changing the odds is not a good thing for the house, so the casino won't lessen their edge through rebates on their games.

By giving rebates you artificially change the odds, especially in the pari-mutuel pools. Of course the ADW service doesn't care about artificially changing the odds, because the ADW is paying off with other people's money. If the ADW service was putting up its own money to pay off winning bets, there would no such thing as rebates and this discussion would never take place.

This is a specific reason why horse wagering is suffering. Odds are being artificially depressed, so a third party can make money. The resulting payoffs on winning bets is to low to compensate the vast majority of the wagering public to learn and participate in horse wagering.
First off, when a rebate is given, it is the ADW's money that it chooses to give to the customer. It is their money. IF they don't give it out, they keep it.
If they decided to keep the money, they would have very few customers.

And no, rebates don't artificially change the odds. The person getting the rebate sometimes makes decisions to accept lower odds than they normally would.

The takeout doesn't change, and the net odds is still reflective of the takeout of the host track. IN other words, for every so called depressed odds you see, you see inflated odds as well.

[Show Me the Wire]

You can slice and dice it anyway you want. The casino's don't devalue the min. wager amount for a reason. Rebating money is devaluing the wager.

If you want to please your customers like the casinos; do it the same way. Let them bet large at full odds, and out of your profits buy them a car, if you want.

Keep the perks separate from the odds as the casinos operate. It is much cleaner that way.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

You can slice and dice it anyway you want. The casino's don't devalue the min. wager amount for a reason. Rebating money is devaluing the bet.

If you want to please your customers like the casinos; do it the same way. Let them bet large at full odds, and out of your profits buy them a car, if you want.

Keep the perks separate from the odds as the casinos operate. It is much cleaner that way.
The total odds are the same. You seem to be cherry picking big time here, it is blatantly obvious.

So you are saying that instead of money, a rebater should give out cars, trips, or hotel rooms?

What is the difference? Big players at Vegas get perks with cash value.

[twindouble]

You are making up an excuse that doesn't exist. Sorry. I've yet to hear anyone say they quit or cut back because whales exist, or rebaters exist.

In fact, almost everyone gives rebates these days. Some a lot less than others.

Look at Woodbine's ADW rebate chart:

http://www.horseplayerinteractive.com/discover/takeoutadjust.aspx

It is minuscule, but according to you, it is against the laws of nature or something like that.

I've never heard anyone complain about Woodbine that those who bet more shouldn't get a bigger break, only that the rewards are too small period for every level.

I don't need an excuse for my opinion. Those here that support what the whales are doing, will be eating your words in the near future.

[Show Me the Wire]

The total odds are the same. You seem to be cherry picking big time here, it is blatantly obvious.

So you are saying that instead of money, a rebater should give out cars, trips, or hotel rooms?

What is the difference? Big players at Vegas get perks with cash value.

Cash value, not cash. A car has cash value doesn't it? I am not cherry picking, just stating how the casino business model works, that you so fondly want to embrace.

You just don't have an answer to the fact the casinos will not discount the cash wager and that casinos keep the value of the wager separate from the comp.

Another factor you are ignoring, is that casino comps are totally discretionary. I know they have their guidlines, but nobody is entitled to any comps for placing any size wager. The gambler does not have the opporutnity to calculate his max. wager to get his best odds or cash return. The player puts his money down at the casino's full odds and takes his risks.

Customers wagering on horses should not have a right to a luxury, in a pari-mutuel pool , that doesn't even exist in casino wagering.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I don't need an excuse for my opinion. Those here that support what the whales are doing, will be eating your words in the near future.
I support getting rebates, equal for all. As a way to fight the fact that track takeout is unlikely to drop anytime in the near future throughout the industry.

Your opinion isn't based on any facts, so I'll take it with a grain of salt.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Cash value, not cash. A car has cash value doesn't it? I am not cherry picking, just stating how the casino business model works, that you so fondly want to embrace.

You just don't have an answer to the fact the casinos will not discount the cash wager and that casinos keep the value of the wager separate from the comp.

Another factor you are ignoring, is that casino comps are totally discretionary. I know they have their guidlines, but nobody is entitled to any comps for placing any size wager. The gambler does not have the opporutnity to calculate his max. wager to get his best odds or cash return. The player puts his money down at the casino's full odds and takes his risks.

Customers wagering on horses should not have a right to a luxury, in a pari-mutuel pool , that doesn't even exist in casino wagering.

A perfect analogy is giving a big good poker player comps. They hurt the odds of the others by being in the game. It is the same thing as giving a big player rebates. The fact the good player is there drops the cash value of every other player.

[Stillriledup]

It has nothing to do with fairness. The fundamental flaw is not recognizing the differences in gambling platforms.

The tracks collect their profits, from the pari-mutuel platform from take out, nothing wrong with that. The problem with rebates is the pool is no longer proprtional to risk, which is by definition pari-mutuel wagering and thus artificially lowers the return on wager.

I have no problem about a bookmaker giving his preferred customers better odds, because his giving a better to deal does not effect what odds I would be satisfied to receive form the same bookmaker or another.

However, in a pari-mutuel pool, we are all equal participants and not customers and we should share proportionally.

Maybe the time has come to change the wagering platform in racing.

That's incorrect, it doesn't artifically lower anything. The betting pool's odds don't know if rebate money or non rebate money is in the pools.

Here's an example. Lets say that i was standing with you at the track and i said "i'm going to run up to the window and bet 2 grand to win on the 1 horse" How would you know if that's 2 grand i received from a rebate or 2 grand my dead uncle left me in his will? It doesn't matter to you how some other bettor happened to decide to wager 2k into the win pool. 2 grand is 2 grand and that two grand is treated the exact same way by the mutuel pool odds figuring system, it has the same exact effect on the win pool regardless of how or why its there.

Another factor is that if you don't give a rebate to a large player, you are really charging him MORE to place the wager than you are charging for the 2 dollar player. For example.

You go to the track and stick 2 dollars to win on a 3-1 shot in the first race. All things being equal, your horse wins and you get back 8 bucks.

So, we proceed ahead to race 2 and there is another 3-1 shot but this time, the big bettor (with no rebate for the sake of this argument) decides to wager 2 grand of recently deceased uncle Jim's money on the 1 horse. What happens is that all of a sudden, the track isn't going to pay our big bettor 8 dollars if he wins, he's going to get 7 dollars because his 2 grand is going to depress the odds.

Is that fair? You got 8 dollars on your 3-1 shot and the big bettor with no rebate got 7.

[Show Me the Wire]

A perfect analogy is giving a big good poker player comps. They hurt the odds of the others by being in the game. It is the same thing as giving a big player rebates. The fact the good player is there drops the cash value of every other player.

Okay now you get it. It hurts the other players. So you are taking the position hurting the other players, is okay for the casino to make money on the churn of the hands.

Did you understand what you just said? The casino is willing to artificially reduce the odds, or devalue the bet, when its own money is not at risk. The only money at risk is the poor uninformed players.

You just butressed my points about the differences between casino games and pari-mutuel wagering. The ADWs are devaluing the wager and the other players's return, just like the casinos when the casino's money is not at risk.

Something is wrong with this business model when the casino, in the role of participant won't devalue the wager, but is willing to discount the wager when other peoples' money is at risk.


The smart players will eventually leave the table and eventually there will be no one to take their place. Poker will return to the dust bin, from whence it came. The same fate awaits tracks if they believe in the folly of devaluing other players' wagers and not their own money via discounts.

[Show Me the Wire]

That's incorrect, it doesn't artifically lower anything. The betting pool's odds don't know if rebate money or non rebate money is in the pools.

Here's an example. Lets say that i was standing with you at the track and i said "i'm going to run up to the window and bet 2 grand to win on the 1 horse" How would you know if that's 2 grand i received from a rebate or 2 grand my dead uncle left me in his will? It doesn't matter to you how some other bettor happened to decide to wager 2k into the win pool. 2 grand is 2 grand and that two grand is treated the exact same way by the mutuel pool odds figuring system, it has the same exact effect on the win pool regardless of how or why its there.

Another factor is that if you don't give a rebate to a large player, you are really charging him MORE to place the wager than you are charging for the 2 dollar player. For example.

You go to the track and stick 2 dollars to win on a 3-1 shot in the first race. All things being equal, your horse wins and you get back 8 bucks.

So, we proceed ahead to race 2 and there is another 3-1 shot but this time, the big bettor (with no rebate for the sake of this argument) decides to wager 2 grand of recently deceased uncle Jim's money on the 1 horse. What happens is that all of a sudden, the track isn't going to pay our big bettor 8 dollars if he wins, he's going to get 7 dollars because his 2 grand is going to depress the odds.

Is that fair? You got 8 dollars on your 3-1 shot and the big bettor with no rebate got 7.

2 grand is 2 grand only if it is a true 2 grand. If you didn't get the cash rebate you wouldn't have wagered the 2 grand.

It is as simple as my casino example. The casinos don't discount the wagers where the casino's money is at risk. There is a reason for this and the same reason should apply to the integrity of the pari-mutuel pools.

good night.

[Stillriledup]

2 grand is 2 grand only if it is a true 2 grand. If you didn't get the cash rebate you wouldn't have wagered the 2 grand.

It is as simple as my casino example. The casinos don't discount the wagers where the casino's money is at risk. There is a reason for this and the same reason should apply to the integrity of the pari-mutuel pools.

good night.

But how does that 2 grand affect YOU? In what way does it matter if its 2 grand from a rebate or 2 grand from an uncle's inheritence?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Okay now you get it. It hurts the other players. So you are taking the position hurting the other players, is okay for the casino to make money on the churn of the hands.

Did you understand what you just said? The casino is willing to artificially reduce the odds, or devalue the bet, when its own money is not at risk. The only money at risk is the poor uninformed players.

You just butressed my points about the differences between casino games and pari-mutuel wagering. The ADWs are devaluing the wager and the other players's return, just like the casinos when the casino's money is not at risk.

Something is wrong with this business model when the casino, in the role of participant won't devalue the wager, but is willing to discount the wager when other peoples' money is at risk.


The smart players will eventually leave the table and eventually there will be no one to take their place. Poker will return to the dust bin, from whence it came. The same fate awaits tracks if they believe in the folly of devaluing other players' wagers and not their own money via discounts.
This does go on. And what it does is motivate the wannabes to be the whales or comp poker player. Pots are richer when the big poker player plays too.

Nothing prevents anyone from being that comped poker player or whale....nothing.

And good players exist everywhere, horses poker, etc. Anyone with a ROI of more than .80 hurt the average players, whether they get rebates or not.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

But how does that 2 grand affect YOU? In what way does it matter if its 2 grand from a rebate or 2 grand from an uncle's inheritence?
Great point, unfortunately I think we'll get some convoluted spin if it is answered.

[Stillriledup]

Great point, unfortunately I think we'll get some convoluted spin if it is answered.

Lets hope not.

[Robert Goren]

This does go on. And what it does is motivate the wannabes to be the whales or comp poker player. Pots are richer when the big poker player plays too.

Nothing prevents anyone from being that comped poker player or whale....nothing.

And good players exist everywhere, horses poker, etc. Anyone with a ROI of more than .80 hurt the average players, whether they get rebates or not.Not having enough money stops me.;)

[Rutgers]

But how does that 2 grand affect YOU? In what way does it matter if its 2 grand from a rebate or 2 grand from an uncle's inheritence?


Great point, unfortunately I think we'll get some convoluted spin if it is answered.

I will give you the convoluted spin. :)

Short answer:

It effects me if you use it to get a higher ROI than me playing the same pools.



Long winded answer:

I will try to explain tying in your example above.

Let’s assume there are two players, Player A and Player B. Player A does not get a rebate. Player B gets a 50% rebate. (I know it’s not realistic, but it makes the math easier)

Let’s also say fair odds on Horse Z is 3-1 and both players know this. Player A will want to wager $100 to win on the horse. Player A knows this will not effect the win odds. A fair return to Player A is $400.

Player B wants to bet $2,000 to win on the horse which would have a fair return of $8,000. But Player B knows his wager will drop the win odds to 5/2 which is below fair value. But Player B makes the wager anyway, and the horse wins and pays $7. Player B collects $7,000 via the pools and $1,000 via a rebate for a total of $8,000. He got fair value on the horse.

Player A got back $350, which is less then fair value. So even though both players played the same pool Player A’s ROI is less.

Is it fair? That is debatable. But how long do you think Player A is going to continue playing the races if he can not ever get fair value. Player B will erode his bankroll quicker then the takeout alone will.

I know it is a rather simple example and the real world is not that cut and dry, but I just wanted to show the theory that there can be a down-side to rebates as well if all players do not have access to them and/or at the same levels. In reality, effects of different rebate levels will vary from track to track and wager to wager.

For the record, I am not anti-rebates. But if there are going to be rebates, for the good of the game they should be available to everyone and at comparable levels. (Of course, if that was the case, they should just lower the takeout the amount of the rebate and do away with the rebates.)

[Stillriledup]

I will give you the convoluted spin. :)

Short answer:

It effects me if you use it to get a higher ROI than me playing the same pools.



Long winded answer:

I will try to explain tying in your example above.

Let’s assume there are two players, Player A and Player B. Player A does not get a rebate. Player B gets a 50% rebate. (I know it’s not realistic, but it makes the math easier)

Let’s also say fair odds on Horse Z is 3-1 and both players know this. Player A will want to wager $100 to win on the horse. Player A knows this will not effect the win odds. A fair return to Player A is $400.

Player B wants to bet $2,000 to win on the horse which would have a fair return of $8,000. But Player B knows his wager will drop the win odds to 5/2 which is below fair value. But Player B makes the wager anyway, and the horse wins and pays $7. Player B collects $7,000 via the pools and $1,000 via a rebate for a total of $8,000. He got fair value on the horse.

Player A got back $350, which is less then fair value. So even though both players played the same pool Player A’s ROI is less.

Is it fair? That is debatable. But how long do you think Player A is going to continue playing the races if he can not ever get fair value. Player B will erode his bankroll quicker then the takeout alone will.

I know it is a rather simple example and the real world is not that cut and dry, but I just wanted to show the theory that there can be a down-side to rebates as well if all players do not have access to them and/or at the same levels. In reality, effects of different rebate levels will vary from track to track and wager to wager.

For the record, I am not anti-rebates. But if there are going to be rebates, for the good of the game they should be available to everyone and at comparable levels. (Of course, if that was the case, they should just lower the takeout the amount of the rebate and do away with the rebates.)


RU, thanks for the reply.

I think where we differ is that you're assuming that both players are betting the same 3-1 shot into the same pool at the same track. My example cites two different 3-1 shots on different races. The reason i use two different races is because the small bettor has a chance to pass the 3-1 shot if it goes down to 5-2 in the last flash whereas the big bettor doesn't have the ability to pass that 5-2 shot. In other words, the big player needs 3-1 just go be able to get a rebateless 5-2. With this example, the rebate that the big bettor receives just makes up for the amount he knocked his own price down.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I understand that example completely Rutgers. And according to my guesstimates, whales increase takeout of non whales by around 1%.
However, anyone can climb up the ladder and become a whale if they are good enough and have the desire.
65% of Americans can get decent rebates on 70% of the tracks as well.

But what whales do is dangle a carrot for the wannabes who know the game can be beaten and this has a very good affect on the pool sizes.

Take whales out of the equation by lessening their rebates or taking them away, and you'll have people fighting it out with a 20% takeout, and very little hope they can win in the long run, if any.

Pools would dry up, and the game would die very quickly.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

If rebates were the answer I would have thought the USA betting turnover would be growing more strongly than what it has in the last few years. I suppose you could argue without the rebates pools would be smaller than they are now but I doubt this. As discussed rebates offer an incentive to bet to all those who get them. But as the people who seek rebates tend to be above average players rebates act as a long term disincentive to bet for those who do not receive them (higher effective takeout)

My guess is that the net effect of rebates is to have zero impact on turnover. But then you have the fairness issue where rebates in a parimutuel system are not fair to those who don't receive them

[Stillriledup]

If rebates were the answer I would have thought the USA betting turnover would be growing more strongly than what it has in the last few years. I suppose you could argue without the rebates pools would be smaller than they are now but I doubt this. As discussed rebates offer an incentive to bet to all those who get them. But as the people who seek rebates tend to be above average players rebates act as a long term disincentive to bet for those who do not receive them (higher effective takeout)

My guess is that the net effect of rebates is to have zero impact on turnover. But then you have the fairness issue where rebates in a parimutuel system are not fair to those who don't receive them

Its fair. The system is fair. Everyone has the exact same opportunity to procure a large rebate of their very own. Its not a closed club, why don't people understand this?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

If rebates were the answer I would have thought the USA betting turnover would be growing more strongly than what it has in the last few years. I suppose you could argue without the rebates pools would be smaller than they are now but I doubt this. As discussed rebates offer an incentive to bet to all those who get them. But as the people who seek rebates tend to be above average players rebates act as a long term disincentive to bet for those who do not receive them (higher effective takeout)

My guess is that the net effect of rebates is to have zero impact on turnover. But then you have the fairness issue where rebates in a parimutuel system are not fair to those who don't receive them
Take rebates out of the system and handle would have been much less last year. That is a fact.

[Charlie D]

Its fair. The system is fair. Everyone has the exact same opportunity to procure a large rebate of their very own. Its not a closed club, why don't people understand this?


Person A earns $1000 a week and pays 10% tax. Person B earns $250 a week and pays 20% tax



Is this fair???

[Charlie D]

Take rebates out of the system and handle would have been much less last year. That is a fact.


So lower taxes for some helps handle. So it begs question why are racing leaders not climbing over each other to lower TO to 10,12, 14% for ALL.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

So lower taxes for some helps handle. So it begs question why are not racing leaders climbing over each other to lower TO to 10,12, 14% for ALL.
It needs to be a unified effort. If one or two tracks do it, as pointed out numerous times here, extra money won at a lower takeout track has a good chance to be lost at another track.

And it is nearly impossible to unite horse racing tracks thanks to different owners, different state laws, and horsemen having too much of a say.

The industry can't even agree on what amount payoffs should be based on when you see the payoffs without a dollar sign next to it, many times you can't tell if it is based on a $1 minimum, a $2 minimum, or even a 10 cent minimum.

And they can't agree on universal drug laws either.

[Charlie D]

Yep HPB.

Maybe they should try do something about that scenario before it is too late.

[Robert Goren]

Take rebates out of the system and handle would have been much less last year. That is a fact. No doubt, but would the total amount of dollars taken out been less or more?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

No doubt, but would the total amount of dollars taken out been less or more?
Let me put it this way, no rebates, and whales will go offshore or quit. Those who receive rebates will cut back, and will devote less of their expendable income to horse racing, some will go offshore or try other forms of gambling, or play other forms of gambling with more of their disposable income.

The non rebated or low rebated player will have their ROI upped by 1%, 2% tops. They will play a little more and produce some extra churn, but nowhere near enough to make up for those who cut back, quit, or go offshore.

Pools will be much lower, which may have an impact on the regular non rebated player, causing maybe some of them to quit or cut back as well.

There will be no reason for new players to get intrigued to play, as the carrot of someone making a living betting horses is now removed. So there will be no chance of growth.

[Indulto]

Originally Posted by Seabiscuit@AR

If rebates were the answer I would have thought the USA betting turnover would be growing more strongly than what it has in the last few years. I suppose you could argue without the rebates pools would be smaller than they are now but I doubt this. As discussed rebates offer an incentive to bet to all those who get them. But as the people who seek rebates tend to be above average players rebates act as a long term disincentive to bet for those who do not receive them (higher effective takeout)

My guess is that the net effect of rebates is to have zero impact on turnover. But then you have the fairness issue where rebates in a parimutuel system are not fair to those who don't receive themIts fair. The system is fair. Everyone has the exact same opportunity to procure a large rebate of their very own. Its not a closed club, why don't people understand this?Because unlike you, they don’t drink the Kool Aid. ;)

BTW are you willing to tell us yet whether you yourself were actually able to take advantage of this opportunity you are trying to convince others is real, or are things still in the hypothetical stage? :lol:

[Robert Goren]

Let me put it this way, no rebates, and whales will go offshore or quit. Those who receive rebates will cut back, and will devote less of their expendable income to horse racing, some will go offshore or try other forms of gambling, or play other forms of gambling with more of their disposable income.

The non rebated or low rebated player will have their ROI upped by 1%, 2% tops. They will play a little more and produce some extra churn, but nowhere near enough to make up for those who cut back, quit, or go offshore.

Pools will be much lower, which may have an impact on the regular non rebated player, causing maybe some of them to quit or cut back as well.

There will be no reason for new players to get intrigued to play, as the carrot of someone making a living betting horses is now removed. So there will be no chance of growth.I am not sure that all of them would quit. As for off shore bookmakers, if they can't dump the whale's wagers in to the pools why wouldn't they just drop the winning players? According to you horse racing couldn't have existed before rebates. Well it did and it did better than it is now. As for people making a living betting horses, I knew a guy who made a very nice living betting horses in the 50s,60s and 70s before rebates. I also know that we can't put the genie back in the bottle and that rebates are here to stay. I am just not sure that taken as a whole that rebates and whales are good for the game.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I am not sure that all of them would quit. As for off shore bookmakers, if they can't dump the whale's wagers in to the pools why wouldn't they just drop the winning players? According to you horse racing couldn't have existed before rebates. Well it did and it did better than it is now. As for people making a living betting horses, I knew a guy who made a very nice living betting horses in the 50s,60s and 70s before rebates. I also know that we can't put the genie back in the bottle and that rebates are here to stay. I am just not sure that taken as a whole that rebates and whales are good for the game.
I've gone through this before. You could make a living at horses in the 50's, 60's and 70's because there was lots of dummy money in the pools. Only 1 in 3 people used a racing form. There was no or little competition from slots and casinos, so dummy gamblers got their fix at the track.

Yes, offshore bookies would bar winners, but by offshore I'm also talking exchange betting (and yes, it can be done from the USA, but it isn't easy).

No, not everyone will quit. The whales might bet a little for action.

The game was unbeatable long term (making a living at it) for a good decade until rebates came along. So rebates aren't the force that has made the game unbeatable for the masses.

[Robert Goren]

I've gone through this before. You could make a living at horses in the 50's, 60's and 70's because there was lots of dummy money in the pools. Only 1 in 3 people used a racing form. There was no or little competition from slots and casinos, so dummy gamblers got their fix at the track.

Yes, offshore bookies would bar winners, but by offshore I'm also talking exchange betting (and yes, it can be done from the USA, but it isn't easy).

No, not everyone will quit. The whales might bet a little for action.

The game was unbeatable long term (making a living at it) for a good decade until rebates came along. So rebates aren't the force that has made the game unbeatable for the masses. The game was never beatable for the masses. Only the very smart ever beat it. That was true in the old days and it true today. It was also true in the decade before rebates. The difference now days that a pretty good handicapper with a lot of money and access to good rebates can make a lot of money by dumping on selected favorites. In the days before rebates that type of wagering was not as profitable.

[Show Me the Wire]

The game was never beatable for the masses. Only the very smart ever beat it. That was true in the old days and it true today. It was also true in the decade before rebates. The difference now days that a pretty good handicapper with a lot of money and access to good rebates can make a lot of money by dumping on selected favorites. In the days before rebates that type of wagering was not as profitable.

No spin in this answer :ThmbUp:

The relevant question is why before rebates a certain type of betting strategy, into pari-mutue pools was not profitable and is profitable susequent to rebates?

Like to hear the no spin answer to that question.

[Robert Goren]

I actually think that it was harder to make a living betting horses in the old days. Sure there was more dumb money in the pools, but you could only bet 8 or 9 races a day. Now days you can pick from over a 50+ races a day.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I actually think that it was harder to make a living betting horses in the old days. Sure there was more dumb money in the pools, but you could only bet 8 or 9 races a day. Now days you can pick from over a 50+ races a day.
Totally disagree with you. You now have diluted pools with smart handicappers versus smart handicappers.
In the 60's and 70's people using their own track variant had a huge edge, and the game was very beatable for those with good money management.

Today, you bet more races and a higher collective takeout against people who are on a equal playing field more than ever before regarding handicapping ability.

[Show Me the Wire]

Totally disagree with you. You now have diluted pools with smart handicappers versus smart handicappers.
In the 60's and 70's people using their own track variant had a huge edge, and the game was very beatable for those with good money management.

Today, you bet more races and a higher collective takeout against people who are on a equal playing field more than ever before regarding handicapping ability.

How are you playing on an equal playing field, when the equally knowledgeable opponent gets a cash discount for making his bet on the same horse? (remember smart handicappers should come to the same conclusions or very close to the same conclusions about the potential winner)

Also, do you disagree with Robert Goren's accurate assertion: "The difference now days that a pretty good handicapper with a lot of money and access to good rebates can make a lot of money by dumping on selected favorites. In the days before rebates that type of wagering was not as profitable." regarding wagering into pari-mutuel pools?

[Robert Goren]

No spin in this answer :ThmbUp:

The relevant question is why before rebates a certain type of betting strategy, into pari-mutue pools was not profitable and is profitable susequent to rebates?

Like to hear the no spin answer to that question.The answer is that it was very close to being profitable but not quite there. Say you get a rebate of 5%. Now you are betting $1.90 instead of $2. While the payoff may be down because of the increased take out overall, it is not enough to make the bet unprofitable. I know that is about as clear as mud, but it the best I can do. perhaps someone else can explain it better. This is not the only way to be profitable betting horses, but rebates make some short priced horses good bets.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

How are you playing on an equal playing field, when the equally knowledgeable opponent gets a cash discount for making his bet on the same horse? (remember smart handicappers should come to the same conclusions or very close to the same conclusions about the potential winner)

Also, do you disagree with Robert Goren's accurate assertion: "The difference now days that a pretty good handicapper with a lot of money and access to good rebates can make a lot of money by dumping on selected favorites. In the days before rebates that type of wagering was not as profitable." regarding wagering into pari-mutuel pools?
To my knowledge, whales avoid chalk, and go after true value. It is hard to get value on any chalk horse usually because most are over bet to begin with.

I meant equal playing field regarding their handicapping knowledge.

Why don't you get rebates Show? What is holding you back?

[Show Me the Wire]

To my knowledge, whales avoid chalk, and go after true value. It is hard to get value on any chalk horse usually because most are over bet to begin with.

I meant equal playing field regarding their handicapping knowledge.

Why don't you get rebates Show? What is holding you back?

Why make the topic about me? Too difficult to address the points?

Also, knowing that I feel rebates continue to contribute to the decline of the game, why would I want to contribute to the games downfall.

Myself, I value long-term decision making and strategies over short-term profits. IMO the short-term profit model has harmed our economy and the world's economy. I hope people and decision makers will start to focus on long-term effects of short-term profit maximizing goals.

Clear enough.

[Robert Goren]

There is no such thing as equally knowledgeable handicappers. Not all handicappers have access to same information. Even the best have different information. As for whales not dumping on short price horse, watch the pools at AQU for a day. The amount of money that comes in on a short price at the second is amazing. Anyone who has done a look at profitability just based on odds knows that the lower the odds the closer it becomes to profitable. There are more than one way to skin a horse, but there are some people who have found a way to pick certain short price horse with the aid of rebates to turn a profit. For the record this is not the way I bet.

[Robert Goren]

Why make the topic about me? Too difficult to address the points?

Also, knowing that I feel rebates continue to contribute to the decline of the game, why would I want to contribute to the games downfall.

Myself, I value long-term decision making and strategies over short-term profits. IMO the short-term profit model has harmed our economy and the world's economy. I hope people and decision makers will start to focus on long-term effects of short-term profit maximizing goals.

Clear enough.Long term decision making models are for people who make the rules. Short term models are for traders. Just remember that if you are using a short term model that things change. The mere fact that you are using a short term model changes things. You need adapt very rapidly to changes. JMO

[Show Me the Wire]

Long term decision making models are for people who make the rules. Short term models are for traders. Just remember that if you are using a short term model that things change. The mere fact that you are using a short term model changes things. You need adapt very rapidly to changes. JMO

:lol: Yes, in the short-term you need to adapt very rapidly.

[Stillriledup]

It has nothing to do with fairness. The fundamental flaw is not recognizing the differences in gambling platforms.

The tracks collect their profits, from the pari-mutuel platform from take out, nothing wrong with that. The problem with rebates is the pool is no longer proprtional to risk, which is by definition pari-mutuel wagering and thus artificially lowers the return on wager.

I have no problem about a bookmaker giving his preferred customers better odds, because his giving a better to deal does not effect what odds I would be satisfied to receive form the same bookmaker or another.

However, in a pari-mutuel pool, we are all equal participants and not customers and we should share proportionally.

Maybe the time has come to change the wagering platform in racing.


You keep saying that it artificially lowers the return on wager and i asked how. You need to explain the diffference between a 200k win pool with no rebate players participating and a 200k pool with ALL rebaters participating. It doesn't matter who's 200k is in the pool, the odds are figured the exact same way and you get the exact same win price on whoever you decide to play regardless of where the money came from. If the 1 horse is 20 grand to win on him of rebate money or 20 grand to win of money from the little old lady from Pasadena, its still going to pay the exact same win price. The 20 grand gets divided up from the remaining monies after a set takeout.

Is it just possible that we are talking about totally different things? I just dont really seem to grasp what you are trying to say. I know there must be some logic in what you are saying, but i just can't seem to see it.

[Show Me the Wire]

Stillriledup:

I don't understand how I can explain it any better thah the casino examples and how they do not discount wagers made when the casino's money is involved, but they are willing to rebate cash, cut the odds when other people's money is only at risk, i.e. poker.

Also, the explanation is without the rebate the person would not wager the 2 grand. The person would wager a lesser amount. You are saying, I believe the person is going to wager 2 grand with or without the rebate. If what you are saying is true, rebates are unnecessary to attract business as people will wager the same with or without rebates.

I am saying the person is not going to wager 2 grand without the rebate. Basically, I am saying instead of the person receiving 2 grand from the uncle's estate he is receiving 1.9k

After all the whole idea of the rebate is to have the person wager more in order to qualify for the discount. Without the discount there is no benefit to wager more.

Also, the effects of wagering more into a pari-mutuel pool ar far different than increasing your wager against the house or on an exchange.

Read ALostTexan's blog and thread about his thesis it may help explain what I am saying.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I don't think the motivation for most getting rebates is to bet more to get more rebates.
Rebates allow the player to bet more races because the horseplayer has more money to play with than if they don't get rebates, and more combinations may become marginal betting opportunities once taking rebates into consideration.

[tleusin]

Where do rebates come from? This thread makes it seem that they come from the tracks themselves. I thought they came from internet gambling sites that provide a venue for placing bets on races for those of us that do not live close to tracks or OTBs. I thought that rebates were a way for these different sites to compete for business. I also thought that most rebates of the extreme came from illegal offshore sites. Can someone please correct my clearly erroneous knowledge. Also, what percentage of track handles is from the internet, legal, illegal and combined if you have access to that data.

[Stillriledup]

Stillriledup:

I don't understand how I can explain it any better thah the casino examples and how they do not discount wagers made when the casino's money is involved, but they are willing to rebate cash, cut the odds when other people's money is only at risk, i.e. poker.

Also, the explanation is without the rebate the person would not wager the 2 grand. The person would wager a lesser amount. You are saying, I believe the person is going to wager 2 grand with or without the rebate. If what you are saying is true, rebates are unnecessary to attract business as people will wager the same with or without rebates.

I am saying the person is not going to wager 2 grand without the rebate. Basically, I am saying instead of the person receiving 2 grand from the uncle's estate he is receiving 1.9k

After all the whole idea of the rebate is to have the person wager more in order to qualify for the discount. Without the discount there is no benefit to wager more.

Also, the effects of wagering more into a pari-mutuel pool ar far different than increasing your wager against the house or on an exchange.

Read ALostTexan's blog and thread about his thesis it may help explain what I am saying.

I'm still lost. What's the difference if a rebater bets 2k to win or 1,900? How does it matter to YOU. That's what i'm asking. I would think that you want MORE money in the pool because that 'cushions' your own bet and makes it less of a chance that your 50 or 100 dollar win bet won't knock a horse from 8.21 to 8.19 (thus, making you get 8 even)