Do you believe in your life time one will see the take out reduce to 10%

[Igeteven]

I was taking to another member this morning and we got into a heated argument over this. I say it's too expense in running a track and all the organizations supported by the take out.

I say no!,

What do you think?

We all know we must have a reduction in take out for the game to come back.

This goes for all bets.

Poll last only 24 hrs, so vote

[GameTheory]

I assume you're talking WPS? No, not under pari-mutuel. If we can get exchange betting, then maybe.

[Igeteven]

I assume you're talking WPS? No, not under pari-mutuel. If we can get exchange betting, then maybe.

this goes for all bets.

[lamboguy]

i pay less than that evertime i make a wager with my rebates. i pay about 7% for all my wagers at penn national even with their crazy 30% takeout on superfectas

[Robert Goren]

I an optimistic that it will happen. Otherwise I will outlive horse racing and I am old and in poor health. There is no way the Penn National business model can go on forever.

[jelly]

Not across the board,but I can see a 5% or 10% takeout on a pk4.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I'm 49 and counting on living til 90, so I'm leaning towards "yes."

[Stillriledup]

Simulcasting is the major problem as to why tracks really can't lower takeout even if they wanted to. Lets say you are santa anita and want to lower your takeouts to 10 pct WPS and 12 pct for exactas and tris (just throwing out random numbers as examples)

Now, here's where Santa Anita takes a bath on their lower takeout experiment. Lets say you are sitting in the racebook at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas and you are a So Cal resident who's visiting sin city. You place a wager in the first race at Santa anita and you win. You win a few extra more bucks than you would have won if the takeouts were at the old rates, so, Santa Anita's lowering the takeout put a couple extra dollars in your pocket. NOW, here's the problem. Santa Anita is banking on you investing those extra dollars into THEIR pools. But, since you are in Vegas (or, any simo outlet in america not owned by Magna) there is a great chance you will be betting that extra money on some other track.

So, to sum up, Magna lowered their takeout so THEY can financially benefit, but it works out that other tracks are benefitting because that 'found money' you got from Magna lowering SA's takeout is going to the pockets of some other track operator.

This is the problem and i believe a major reason why tracks are just keeping takeout rates as is, there's really not much financial incentive to lower the takeouts since a large percentage of the extra money that Magna puts in your pocket is just going to other people.

If there was no such thing as simulcasting (or internet betting, or phone betting) and you had to be live and on track to wager, tracks would be more likely to want to lower takeouts, since they know that all the extra money their fans are making from a lower rate would be rebet into their own pools.

[Robert Goren]

Simulcasting is the major problem as to why tracks really can't lower takeout even if they wanted to. Lets say you are santa anita and want to lower your takeouts to 10 pct WPS and 12 pct for exactas and tris (just throwing out random numbers as examples)

Now, here's where Santa Anita takes a bath on their lower takeout experiment. Lets say you are sitting in the racebook at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas and you are a So Cal resident who's visiting sin city. You place a wager in the first race at Santa anita and you win. You win a few extra more bucks than you would have won if the takeouts were at the old rates, so, Santa Anita's lowering the takeout put a couple extra dollars in your pocket. NOW, here's the problem. Santa Anita is banking on you investing those extra dollars into THEIR pools. But, since you are in Vegas (or, any simo outlet in america not owned by Magna) there is a great chance you will be betting that extra money on some other track.

So, to sum up, Magna lowered their takeout so THEY can financially benefit, but it works out that other tracks are benefitting because that 'found money' you got from Magna lowering SA's takeout is going to the pockets of some other track operator.

This is the problem and i believe a major reason why tracks are just keeping takeout rates as is, there's really not much financial incentive to lower the takeouts since a large percentage of the extra money that Magna puts in your pocket is just going to other people.

If there was no such thing as simulcasting (or internet betting, or phone betting) and you had to be live and on track to wager, tracks would be more likely to want to lower takeouts, since they know that all the extra money their fans are making from a lower rate would be rebet into their own pools.HUH?

[GameTheory]

That's true. If you lower takeout in a vacuum, then you'll only be getting back a small part of the benefit as the extra money is spread around.

[rwwupl]

Ha Ha Ha .. A pole like this can not prove anything, no one can see into the future. :D

I am a horseplayer. I am used to the odds being against me. I believe economics will force a dramatic reduction in rates,eventually.

Right now, the mythical score from the gallery is 7 yes, 20 no.

When I play poker, a score like that indicates the hand is about even up,according to the players... Igeteven is invited to my poker game :)

[DJofSD]

Not just no but hell no.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

I say no for the simple reason that the politicians (especially in the empire state
are totally ignorant to the proven advantages of a lower take out.

[comet52]

Not in a million years. It might go into the mid-teens someday if racing ever gets back on it's feet.

[GameTheory]

I am a horseplayer. I am used to the odds being against me. I believe economics will force a dramatic reduction in rates,eventually.Really? Those in power in government generally have been ignoring economic realities for centuries (see recent global financial collapse). It is hard to be consistently wrong when there are real-world consequences that everybody can see, but until someone figures out how lowering takeout can IMMEDIATELY create a short-term gain for the people in charge, it isn't going to happen voluntarily. Maybe you are right and they will be forced to it on the point of bankruptcy, but I think they still wouldn't believe it and would just go out of business...

[thaskalos]

Not only is the take-out not going to be reduced..I am willing to wager that it will be increased through-out the land, in the next 5 years.

18-20% WPS...and 25% on all exotics...30% at Philly Park.

With the ever-dwindling mutuel handle nation-wide...the money has to come from somewhere.

[GameTheory]

With the ever-dwindling mutuel handle nation-wide...the money has to come from somewhere.And they're not the only ones. As long as people think the way to increase revenue is via taxes things will never change...

[therussmeister]

I think a major impediment to reducing take-out is that purses are funded, and taxes are calculated, as a percentage of handle instead of a percentage of the tracks gross income. So if there would be a reduction of take-out it would all come out of the tracks cut.

[Igeteven]

Ha Ha Ha .. A pole like this can not prove anything, no one can see into the future. :D

I am a horseplayer. I am used to the odds being against me. I believe economics will force a dramatic reduction in rates,eventually.

Right now, the mythical score from the gallery is 7 yes, 20 no.

When I play poker, a score like that indicates the hand is about even up,according to the players... Igeteven is invited to my poker game :)

This poll is great, it tells me who lives in fantasy land or reality :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[ronsmac]

I remember new york writers complaining about the takeout all the way back in 1982. So i'd say it will never happen with the tracks themselves. Of course players do play rates in that range with certain rebate shops.

[RaceBookJoe]

Sadly, i think there is a better chance of the racing industry going belly up than having a reduced takeout. rbj

[Greyfox]

No.
Horse racing is a low "churn" sport.
A slot player can pull the one armed bandit 6 times a minute.
A horse player gets one shot every 20-30 minutes.
Ain't gonna happen. Do the math.

[turfnsport]

Not just no but hell no.

What he said, but add a couple more "hells"

[thespaah]

Simulcasting is the major problem as to why tracks really can't lower takeout even if they wanted to. Lets say you are santa anita and want to lower your takeouts to 10 pct WPS and 12 pct for exactas and tris (just throwing out random numbers as examples)

Now, here's where Santa Anita takes a bath on their lower takeout experiment. Lets say you are sitting in the racebook at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas and you are a So Cal resident who's visiting sin city. You place a wager in the first race at Santa anita and you win. You win a few extra more bucks than you would have won if the takeouts were at the old rates, so, Santa Anita's lowering the takeout put a couple extra dollars in your pocket. NOW, here's the problem. Santa Anita is banking on you investing those extra dollars into THEIR pools. But, since you are in Vegas (or, any simo outlet in america not owned by Magna) there is a great chance you will be betting that extra money on some other track.

So, to sum up, Magna lowered their takeout so THEY can financially benefit, but it works out that other tracks are benefitting because that 'found money' you got from Magna lowering SA's takeout is going to the pockets of some other track operator.

This is the problem and i believe a major reason why tracks are just keeping takeout rates as is, there's really not much financial incentive to lower the takeouts since a large percentage of the extra money that Magna puts in your pocket is just going to other people.

If there was no such thing as simulcasting (or internet betting, or phone betting) and you had to be live and on track to wager, tracks would be more likely to want to lower takeouts, since they know that all the extra money their fans are making from a lower rate would be rebet into their own pools.
I do not agree. Bettors usually stick to the same tracks. Especially successful bettors. And what's more, unlike casinos, tracks don't care if people win or lose. They are interested only in repeat action. So If a bettor gets a better value at one track over another and is having some success, it would be quite logical for that perosn to continue betting that track.
Look, IMO tracks are just like any other consumer driven business. If the business makes their establishment more attractive to the marketplace there is a reasonable probability that the marketplace will continue to patronize that business.

[thespaah]

Yes. It will be lowered. That will happen after the major contraction in the racing busines takes place.
I have predicited this.
In 10-20 years there will be at least 1/3 if not 1/2 the number of tracks operating then than there is now. There will also be far fewer live race dates.
This is the only way the sport can survive.

[Stillriledup]

I do not agree. Bettors usually stick to the same tracks. Especially successful bettors. And what's more, unlike casinos, tracks don't care if people win or lose. They are interested only in repeat action. So If a bettor gets a better value at one track over another and is having some success, it would be quite logical for that perosn to continue betting that track.
Look, IMO tracks are just like any other consumer driven business. If the business makes their establishment more attractive to the marketplace there is a reasonable probability that the marketplace will continue to patronize that business.


You're giving bettors too much credit. Also, you are using logic. It is logical for a person to bet one track, but if you are at simo, and your hometown track is 25 min to post for the next race and the 3rd at Emerald is going off in 3 minutes, you are going to stick something on the emerald race.

I feel that a bettor who is a Santa Anita regular (for example) might just bet Santa Anita when he's live and on track, but if that same bettor flies to a Vegas Sportsbook, i believe he's betting more than one track.

Successful bettors are sticking to one or maybe 2 tracks, but most people are not successful bettors....they're betting the next race that runs regardless of venue.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

No.
Horse racing is a low "churn" sport.
A slot player can pull the one armed bandit 6 times a minute.
A horse player gets one shot every 20-30 minutes.
Ain't gonna happen. Do the math.
I have over 60 tracks on my schedule today. Most online players play more than one track. Your math is off.

The reality is a slot player can go play for 4 four hours of continuous action on a couple of hundred bucks.

A couple of hundred buck can be lost by a medium to serious horseplayer in two or three races which might go off in a 5 minute time span.

[thaskalos]

A couple of hundred bucks can be lost by a medium to serious horseplayer in two or three races which might go off in a 5 minute time span.Truer words have never been spoken...

Our game has become the fastest game in town...

[Cratos]

I was taking to another member this morning and we got into a heated argument over this. I say it's too expense in running a track and all the organizations supported by the take out.

I say no!,

What do you think?

We all know we must have a reduction in take out for the game to come back.

This goes for all bets.

Poll last only 24 hrs, so vote

Your question might seem as a good one to the bettor, but it misses the point by a mile. The real question is why the take is not reduced? The answer is simple: declining wagering handles across the board.

The “take” as it is so euphemistically called is the just the primary revenue stream to the wagering racing industry (concessions are smaller streams) and it come in the form of the multiplier effect.

That is, the more money wagered, the greater the revenue since the “take” is appended to every wagering dollar.

Therefore to answer the question why the take is not being reduced can be found in the answer of how the track would need to increase the wagering handle.

For example if mystical Racetrack A had a 23% “take” with an average daily handle of $1M which would give the track an average daily “take” revenue stream of $230,000, for the track to reduce the take to 10% it would have to have its average daily handle increased by a factor of 2.3 to remain at the same revenue stream.

In conclusion, if wagering handles do not increase, long term “take” reduction will not happen given that all other economic efficiencies at the track has been optimized.

[Deepsix]

Comeon... Is this Dylan Ratigan, or what? <smile>

[Greyfox]

I have over 60 tracks on my schedule today. Most online players play more than one track. Your math is off.

.

Most simulcast sites bring in 12 or so tracks a day. Half of those are harness.
Most of the serious players that I know are playing one or two or three tracks a day at the most in those OTB's.
At best they have 1 play every ten minutes.
While some play both harness and thoroughbred, most don't.
Yes, I know there are players on this site who play 50 races a day from their computers at home. They are the exception, not the rule.
Dropping the take to 10 % would also increase the length of time for the horse player to lose his $200 in your example.
It ain't gonna happen. Do the math.

(You're looking after a website that has 60 tracks scheduled. You are likely not playing 60 tracks today is my guess.)

[Cratos]

Comeon... Is this Dylan Ratigan, or what? <smile>
No, this is an understanding that horserace wagering is a business and it must be run like a business.