REBATES: Pro or Con?

[highnote]

Maybe this thread can be made "sticky" by P.A.

There is a lot of discussion about rebates on this board -- both pro and con.

My belief is that if a person wants to bet with a rebate badly enough they can find a place that will take their bets and give a rebate.

To my knowledge, no bettor from California or Arizona, for example, has ever been arrested for betting on a horse race over the internet or telephone.

I attended an Equine Law conference a few years back in Lexington, KY. One prominent attorney told the attendees that it is highly unlikely that a bettor would be arrested for betting on a horse race over the phone or internet in the United States. The Attorney General of my state told me the same.

Look, jaywalking is illegal. I see people jaywalk all the time, right in front of police officers, but they don't get arrested.

If anything, rebated players are doing the non-rebated players a favor. Rebated players are pissing off some of the non-rebated players. If enough non-rebated players get angry enough maybe they will start taking action to get takeouts lowered across the board. However, unless the non-rebated players start taking action other than complaining here on PA nothing about takeouts will change.

I would like to know if anyone has a good plan to get takeouts lowered across the board?

[Bobzilla]

To my knowledge, no bettor from California or Arizona, for example, has ever been arrested for betting on a horse race over the internet or telephone.

I attended an Equine Law conference a few years back in Lexington, KY. One prominent attorney told the attendees that it is highly unlikely that a bettor would be arrested for betting on a horse race over the phone or internet in the United States. The Attorney General of my state told me the same.

Look, jaywalking is illegal. I see people jaywalk all the time, right in front of police officers, but they don't get arrested.


Side question not directly related to the primary topic of your post, but is your Attorney General Richard Blumenthal? The CT AG has been vocal over the years with his opposition to the growth of available wagering opportunities via the internet. He has referred to internet wagering companies and their business as "despicable", and has always vowed to "look out after the public interest" in this regard. My impression has been that he would be more interested in prosecuting the providers rather than the consumer if he were to go on the warpath. At least here in CT we can still use the phone, which of course puts us at a disadvantage in regard to reacting to late odds changes, possibly being shut out, not participating in on-line live-money contests,etc.,etc. Is Blumenthal the AG who told you that a bettor would most likely not be prosecuted? Just curious.

[lamboguy]

when you go to a casino, if you are a big player you get free bigger and better rooms, limo service, top shelf whiskey, godiva chocolates, private planes and choice seats for shows. in racing the bigger player is even more important, the bigger the handles the more the shortstops takes shots at the whales. a lower takeout would only work in conjuction with higher handles. to get higher handles you need more whales in the game, to get them in the game you need more than lower takeouts and rebates, you need better wagering security, uniform drug policy's, and more horses in races, and more people owning those horses that run around the track. on the positive side of things, monmouth did a good job this year, but not enough!

[highnote]

Yes. It was Blumenthal. I can't remember the exact quote. He responded to an email I sent him. I was fuming mad because he forced Xpressbet to close accounts of CT residents. Yet he didn't make AmericaTab or Racing Channel close mine. I argued that I could use the internet to make free phone calls and send acoustic tones to CT OTBs "On The Wire" phone betting service. This was no different than betting on the internet with XPressbet. He finally conceded that it was unlikely I would be arrested.

He even got a horse racing show sponsored by CT OTB kicked off of Cablevision's network because he said it caused an escalation of gambling (or something to that effect). I wrote him about that telling him what a crock that statement was. He didn't make Cablevision remove ESPN's races of the week show. It's just politics. It makes for good soundbites -- he is a politician afterall and needs to think about re-election.


Side question not directly related to the primary topic of your post, but is your Attorney General Richard Blumenthal? The CT AG has been vocal over the years with his opposition to the growth of available wagering opportunities via the internet. He has referred to internet wagering companies and their business as "despicable", and has always vowed to "look out after the public interest" in this regard. My impression has been that he would be more interested in prosecuting the providers rather than the consumer if he were to go on the warpath. At least here in CT we can still use the phone, which of course puts us at a disadvantage in regard to reacting to late odds changes, possibly being shut out, not participating in on-line live-money contests,etc.,etc. Is Blumenthal the AG who told you that a bettor would most likely not be prosecuted? Just curious.

[andymays]

Horse racing would be much better off if we had 12% takeout on all bets and no rebates. It's not going to happen though.

I'd be curious to know how Horse Racing compares to poker and maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong but.......

When you have 8 players at any given table there is usually a "rake". Is there ever a time when some players pay less "rake" than other players at the table? If not why not? If a player plays more poker than the other guys at the table why isn't he given preferential "rake" rates? If one player had to pay a 10% rake and anther only a 3% rake wouldn't the player with the 3% rake have an unfair advantage?

This is a game that competes with Horse Racing right?

[andymays]

Here is an excerpt taken from an email I recieved from rwwupl:



Why do California Players Pay More to Bet?

Rebates to favored customers are something that works to the deficit of California players and the industry in general. Many ADW,s offer rebates, but under present California state law, sponsored by the TOC there is a 6.5% Retention Cap on ADW wagers generated within the state of California. There is no state law prohibiting rebates in California, but the retention cap leaves no wiggle room for California players to receive the rebate percentages that ADWs offer other out of state players. Yes, there are certain favored California individuals offered up to 3% in California, but it is very selective, and is not public knowledge. ADWs offer rebates to favor out of state players on California tracks around 8% rebate. Takeout, plus any rebate, is the cost of the bet to the player.

We are a customer driven participant sport, not a spectator sport. Customers compete against each other. The customer with a lower cost of bet will last longer, win more often and create more churn (handle) than the customer that has a higher takeout to overcome.

How can you or why would you as a customer want to compete with others who have been granted a head start by the house? The newcomer is asked to compete on an unlevel playing field. If you live in California, you are subsidizing California players who live out of state. California players must avoid the law and seek other places to bet if they want a lower cost and competitive deal…many of these other sources do not report to the mainstream and all Californians lose revenue.

[jballscalls]

Horse racing would be much better off if we had 12% takeout on all bets and no rebates. It's not going to happen though.

I'd be curious to know how Horse Racing compares to poker and maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong but.......

When you have 8 players at any given table there is usually a "rake". Is there ever a time when some players pay less "rake" than other players at the table? If not why not? If a player plays more poker than the other guys at the table why isn't he given preferential "rake" rates? If one player had to pay a 10% rake and anther only a 3% rake wouldn't the player with the 3% rake have an unfair advantage?

This is a game that competes with Horse Racing right?

in poker the only person who pays more in rake is the person that wins the most. poker rakes in every room i've ever worked in or been in are always fixed. generally $1 for every 10 bucks in the pot up to $3 or $4 bucks. many places also swipe $1 or $2 for jackpot bonuses, of which the house generally takes a healthy clip of (35% at my family's place)

poker is like racing in that it wants churn. they dont really care who wins, they just want a good game (full fields) and as many games as possible. but similar to racing that if one guy steamrolls the game and everyone else loses, the game breaks down.

[andymays]

in poker the only person who pays more in rake is the person that wins the most. poker rakes in every room i've ever worked in or been in are always fixed. generally $1 for every 10 bucks in the pot up to $3 or $4 bucks. many places also swipe $1 or $2 for jackpot bonuses, of which the house generally takes a healthy clip of (35% at my family's place)

poker is like racing in that it wants churn. they dont really care who wins, they just want a good game (full fields) and as many games as possible. but similar to racing that if one guy steamrolls the game and everyone else loses, the game breaks down.

Thanks for the information. :ThmbUp:

[Bobzilla]

Yes. It was Blumenthal. I can't remember the exact quote. He responded to an email I sent him. I was fuming mad because he forced Xpressbet to close accounts of CT residents. Yet he didn't make AmericaTab or Racing Channel close mine. I argued that I could use the internet to make free phone calls and send acoustic tones to CT OTBs "On The Wire" phone betting service. This was no different than betting on the internet with XPressbet. He finally conceded that it was unlikely I would be arrested.

He even got a horse racing show sponsored by CT OTB kicked off of Cablevision's network because he said it caused an escalation of gambling (or something to that effect). I wrote him about that telling him what a crock that statement was. He didn't make Cablevision remove ESPN's races of the week show. It's just politics. It makes for good soundbites -- he is a politician afterall and needs to think about re-election.

Thanks for sharing some of the details of your communications with him. As a horse player residing in the same state as yourself I'm obviously very interested. We're in agreement over the primary motivation he has for taking such a strong stand on the issue.

[lamboguy]

Here is an excerpt taken from an email I recieved from rwwupl:



Why do California Players Pay More to Bet?

Rebates to favored customers are something that works to the deficit of California players and the industry in general. Many ADW,s offer rebates, but under present California state law, sponsored by the TOC there is a 6.5% Retention Cap on ADW wagers generated within the state of California. There is no state law prohibiting rebates in California, but the retention cap leaves no wiggle room for California players to receive the rebate percentages that ADWs offer other out of state players. Yes, there are certain favored California individuals offered up to 3% in California, but it is very selective, and is not public knowledge. ADWs offer rebates to favor out of state players on California tracks around 8% rebate. Takeout, plus any rebate, is the cost of the bet to the player.

We are a customer driven participant sport, not a spectator sport. Customers compete against each other. The customer with a lower cost of bet will last longer, win more often and create more churn (handle) than the customer that has a higher takeout to overcome.

How can you or why would you as a customer want to compete with others who have been granted a head start by the house? The newcomer is asked to compete on an unlevel playing field. If you live in California, you are subsidizing California players who live out of state. California players must avoid the law and seek other places to bet if they want a lower cost and competitive deal…many of these other sources do not report to the mainstream and all Californians lose revenue.from what i have been told, those that play poker on a time basis get rebated portions of their time money in the form of points. if you are a regular poker customer once in awhile the casino gives you a free buffet and a preferential treatment of going to the head of the line for the buffet.

[Robert Goren]

For what it is worth, a lot of internet poker rooms have rebates and generally the more money bet the higher the rebate. Just horse racing there are players who break even playing, but make money because of the rebates.

[classhandicapper]

For what it is worth, a lot of internet poker rooms have rebates and generally the more money bet the higher the rebate. Just horse racing there are players who break even playing, but make money because of the rebates.

Yes, in poker they are often referred to as bonuses. ;-)

Before they cracked down on poker a little in the US, you could earn a decent living just bonus whoring multiple sites even if you were only a break even player.

[riskman]

The only way tracks will listen is if players just stop betting. That might not even be enough and the tracks will blame something else other than high takeout.
If you went into a racetrack or OTB and did a survey most people would not even know what the cost is of making a wager. Most do not even care.
The game has to be marketed in a new way to draw new players into the wagering pools. Off track OTB's are not the answer. It looks as if the Internet is the only viable answer and new types of wagers for bettors be developed that do not require a broad background in handicapping. There are also too many tracks to choose from and not enough thoroughbred tracks offering weekday nighttime racing. Yep, the game has to get into households when people are home, easy access to wagering outlets(deposit/withdrawal) and new types of wagers maybe some that are not pari-mutual.

[Stillriledup]

Maybe this thread can be made "sticky" by P.A.

There is a lot of discussion about rebates on this board -- both pro and con.

My belief is that if a person wants to bet with a rebate badly enough they can find a place that will take their bets and give a rebate.

To my knowledge, no bettor from California or Arizona, for example, has ever been arrested for betting on a horse race over the internet or telephone.

I attended an Equine Law conference a few years back in Lexington, KY. One prominent attorney told the attendees that it is highly unlikely that a bettor would be arrested for betting on a horse race over the phone or internet in the United States. The Attorney General of my state told me the same.

Look, jaywalking is illegal. I see people jaywalk all the time, right in front of police officers, but they don't get arrested.

If anything, rebated players are doing the non-rebated players a favor. Rebated players are pissing off some of the non-rebated players. If enough non-rebated players get angry enough maybe they will start taking action to get takeouts lowered across the board. However, unless the non-rebated players start taking action other than complaining here on PA nothing about takeouts will change.

I would like to know if anyone has a good plan to get takeouts lowered across the board?


The belief among some here at PA is that only certain people are allowed to get rebates. I'm not sure why they think this, maybe some of them can chime in and talk about it.

For the record, EVERYONE has the ability to procure a rebate of their very own. I'm not saying its easy, but its not impossible. As far as i know (and if i'm wrong you can correct me) nobody has ever been denied a rebate because of color, religion or ethnicity.

Sure, there are certain 'criteria' you must meet in order to procure that rebate, but the guidelines are set. You know what you have to do in order to get one of your very own.

[Robert Goren]

Yes, in poker they are often referred to as bonuses. ;-)

Before they cracked down on poker a little in the US, you could earn a decent living just bonus whoring multiple sites even if you were only a break even player.The rebates now days are based on play. I believe what you are referring to was reload bonus. I have a rebate deal with Full Tilt Poker. It is a % of the rake out every pot in which I get a cards. It is a pretty good deal.

[highnote]

Thanks for sharing some of the details of your communications with him. As a horse player residing in the same state as yourself I'm obviously very interested. We're in agreement over the primary motivation he has for taking such a strong stand on the issue.


He also forced NY state to close accounts of Connecticut residents.

[chickenhead]

I am pro-lowering takeout, which makes me pro-lowering of rebates in the absolute.

And yes, as a California resident -- I abhor the current situation for California residents particularly. Obtaining a rebate is technically a possibility, but does involve violating terms of use and possibly some laws. Not betting, or betting much less -- is an easier solution for me than engaging in IP spoofing, location spoofing, and seemingly illicit movement of monies required to get them.

[highnote]

Chick,
As I wrote in post #1, jaywalking is illegal, too, but it's highly unlikely you'll get arrested.

If you really want to bet and get rebates just call around.



I am pro-lowering takeout, which makes me pro-lowering of rebates in the absolute.

And yes, as a California resident -- I abhor the current situation for California residents particularly. Obtaining a rebate is technically a possibility, but does involve violating terms of use and possibly some laws. Not betting, or betting much less -- is an easier solution for me than engaging in IP spoofing, location spoofing, and seemingly illicit movement of monies required to get them.

[chickenhead]

the risk with doing illegal things with your dough....is lack of recourse if something goes wrong, not arrest. Now it turns out that just straight ADW play may have questionable enough recourse...no interest in compounding that further.

No legal recourse = I need to know where you live. not because I'm a tough guy, but because shared vulnerability is what keeps the black market honest. Olde timey rules, unlike kooky laws, always have a good reason.

there are much higher ROI opportunities to be had if legality isn't a required component.

[bigmack]

engaging in IP spoofing, location spoofing, and seemingly illicit movement of monies required to get them.
But that's the fun part.+

[Indulto]

My belief is that if a person wants to bet with a rebate badly enough they can find a place that will take their bets and give a rebate.

To my knowledge, no bettor from California or Arizona, for example, has ever been arrested for betting on a horse race over the internet or telephone.

… Look, jaywalking is illegal. I see people jaywalk all the time, right in front of police officers, but they don't get arrested.Are you advocating that players ignore laws? In Southern California with all the hit and runs that occur, traffic cops almost NEVER ignore jaywalkers. What other laws do you consider not worth obeying?… unless the non-rebated players start taking action other than complaining here on PA nothing about takeouts will change.

I would like to know if anyone has a good plan to get takeouts lowered across the board?Are you -- rugged individualist that you are, willing to bet into the highest of takes when you perceive you have an “edge” -- now finally advocating action or is this post just another “pot-stirring exercise” on your part?

Instead of demanding a plan from others, why don’t you prime the pump with even the germ of an idea that might lead to a solution, given that boycotts aren’t exactly your style? That said, your question of HPB in the other thread was an extremely valuable one that should help players evaluate their ADW vendors. Is XpressBet proof that size doesn't always matter?

[Robert Fischer]

it's not just "wanting rebates" and being willing to "manage money:cool:", but that the best rebates seem to be offered to the higher volume players.

[thaskalos]

Yes, in poker they are often referred to as bonuses. ;-)

Before they cracked down on poker a little in the US, you could earn a decent living just bonus whoring multiple sites even if you were only a break even player.They are not bonuses...deposit bonuses are different.

In online poker, the poker sites offer something called RAKEBACK...in which you get anywhere between 27% and 35% of your takeout(rake), deposited back into your account.

For some players, it means thousands of dollars a month in extra income, for no added effort.

[highnote]

[font=Verdana]Are you advocating that players ignore laws?

No. I advocate changing the laws.



In Southern California with all the hit and runs that occur, traffic cops almost NEVER ignore jaywalkers. What other laws do you consider not worth obeying?

I advocate ignoring many "blue laws". Look them up and ask me about them and I'll tell you which ones I advocate ignorning.


Are you -- rugged individualist that you are

Are you jealous?

, willing to bet into the highest of takes when you perceive you have an “edge” -- now finally advocating action or is this post just another “pot-stirring exercise” on your part?

I'm not advocating anything. I'm just saying that I will bet into a pool whenever I have an edge. I don't think it's necessary to boycott, if that's what you're implying. As I have said at least 3 times today my hypothesis is "As takeout approaces 100% the number of positive expecation bets approach zero." I could be wrong, but that's my hypothesis.

Now, will you quit expecting me to answer the same question. If you keep asking the same question over and over and expecting a different answer from me you just might be disappointed. Every once in awhile I might change my mind, but for the most part you can expect that I will be consistent. :D


Instead of demanding a plan from others, why don’t you prime the pump with even the germ of an idea that might lead to a solution, given that boycotts aren’t exactly your style?

To be honest, I could care less what other players want to do. I'm just telling you that takeout increases will not stop people from betting.

I'm still waiting to hear what you're going to do to get takeouts lowered other than complain that I'm not doing enough.



That said, your question of HPB in the other thread was an extremely valuable one that should help players evaluate their ADW vendors. Is XpressBet proof that size doesn't always matter?

Thank you, but I honestly don't know which thread you're referring to.

[thaskalos]

in poker the only person who pays more in rake is the person that wins the most. poker rakes in every room i've ever worked in or been in are always fixed. generally $1 for every 10 bucks in the pot up to $3 or $4 bucks. many places also swipe $1 or $2 for jackpot bonuses, of which the house generally takes a healthy clip of (35% at my family's place)

poker is like racing in that it wants churn. they dont really care who wins, they just want a good game (full fields) and as many games as possible. but similar to racing that if one guy steamrolls the game and everyone else loses, the game breaks down.A common misconception, which has no base in fact.

In reality...the winning poker player is never the one who wins the most pots. All winning poker players are SELECTIVELY aggressive, only entering the pots when their cards present them with an edge...which only happens about 20%-25% of the time. They win the most, by playing the least number of hands.

The losing poker player wins more pots than the winning player...but his lack of discipline is his undoing.

[highnote]

it's not just "wanting rebates" and being willing to "manage money:cool:", but that the best rebates seem to be offered to the higher volume players.


Premier Turf Club does a good job helping the smaller players.

[Valuist]

What is there to debate? Rebates are a good thing for the player.

[Indulto]

No. I advocate changing the laws.

I advocate ignoring many "blue laws". Look them up and ask me about them and I'll tell you which ones I advocate ignorning.

Are you jealous?I certainly am. I wish I could come up with the gems of wisdom you impart to this board. ;)I'm not advocating anything. I'm just saying that I will bet into a pool whenever I have an edge. I don't think it's necessary to boycott, if that's what you're implying.Obviously I didn't state it clearly enough.As I have said at least 3 times today my hypothesis is "As takeout approaces 100% the number of positive expecation bets approach zero." I could be wrong, but that's my hypothesis.3 times qualifies as advocacy in my book.Now, will you quit expecting me to answer the same question. If you keep asking the same question over and over and expecting a different answer from me you just might be disappointed. Every once in awhile I might change my mind, but for the most part you can expect that I will be consistent. :DYou're right, sj, you're consistently a disappointment.To be honest, I could care less what other players want to do.Good thing you're no longer leading a horseplayer's organization.I'm just telling you that takeout increases will not stop people from betting.Certainly not you!I'm still waiting to hear what you're going to do to get takeouts lowered other than complain that I'm not doing enough.Believe me, you're doing too much already -- for the pro-takeout increase side.Thank you, but I honestly don't know which thread you're referring to.Prominent tracks, CHRIMS to address settlement issues
#37

[highnote]

What is there to debate? Rebates are a good thing for the player.


I wish I would have thought to say it so clearly and concisely! :ThmbUp:

[highnote]

I certainly am. I wish I could come up with the gems of wisdom you impart to this board. ;)

You just need good material to reply to.

You're right, sj, you're consistently a disappointment.

Ouch. Coming from you that really hurts. :D


Good thing you're no longer leading a horseplayer's organization.

Double ouch. :D

Believe me, you're doing too much already -- for the pro-takeout increase side.

How so? As Valuist so eloquently stated, what is there to debate? Rebates are good for the player.

If you think that I think raising takeout is a good idea then I don't think you carefully read or understood my recent posts.

Let me say it again for about the 5th time but using slightly different words, I have said that an increase in takeouts will produce fewer races with overlays. So for the players who will only bet when they have a positive expectation there will fewer races to bet. But just because takeout goes up does not mean I will stop betting altogether. I will keep betting as long as I can find bets that give me an edge. I fully expect that as takeout increases I will find fewer bets. So I will bet less often. I will not bet when I do not find an edge. So as takeout approaches 100% my hypothesis is that I will bet less and I predict others will too.

However, just because takeout goes up and I bet less often does not mean that the racetracks that increase their takeout will make less money. Perhaps some racetracks can increase their takeouts and make more money. However, at some point they will surely make less money unless they can keep finding more suckers or compulsive gamblers to wager on their product.

Value oriented bettors will stop wagering when the good bets dry up. When good bets present themselves infrequently value bettors may stop looking for them even though they do present themselves on occasion, but it simply won't be worth the value bettors while to wait around for them to appear. Better opportunities will be found -- say at the online poker tables or in the stock market -- maybe even in real estate.

[Indulto]

You just need good material to reply to.

Ouch. Coming from you that really hurts.:D

Double ouch. :D

If you think that I think raising takeout is a good idea then I don't think you carefully read or understood my recent posts.

Let me say it again for about the 5th time but using slightly different words, I have said that an increase in takeouts will produce fewer races with overlays. So for the players who will only bet when they have a positive expectation there will fewer races to bet. But just because takeout goes up does not mean I will stop betting altogether. I will keep betting as long as I can find bets that give me an edge. I fully expect that as takeout increases I will find fewer bets. So I will bet less often. I will not bet when I do not find an edge. So as takeout approaches 100% my hypothesis is that I will bet less and I predict others will too.

However, just because takeout goes up and I bet less often does not mean that the racetracks that increase their takeout will make less money. Perhaps some racetracks can increase their takeouts and make more money. However, at some point they will surely make less money unless they can keep finding more suckers or compulsive gamblers to wager on their product.

Value oriented bettors will stop wagering when the good bets dry up. When good bets present themselves infrequently value bettors may stop looking for them even though they do present themselves on occasion, but it simply won't be worth the value bettors while to wait around for them to appear. Better opportunities will be found -- say at the online poker tables or in the stock market -- maybe even in real estate.Allow me to congratulate you on your excellent impersonation of a fat-bottomed doll that always bounces back regardless of how hard it is pushed away. It was fun, but I’m getting finger-weary, and I don’t wish to encourage you to repeat yourself a 6th time, or refuse to answer (which is also part of this comedy we’re playing).

You say that 1) you don’t think raising takeout is a good idea, 2) value players will eventually seek other forms of gambling/investment, and 3) there is a burden on tracks to replenish their supply of "suckers and compulsive gamblers." Why are you content to wait patiently for the inevitable while continuing to look for favorable situations that will probably occur less frequently? Will you simply take satisfaction when the game tanks because the conditions you’ve predicted actually come to pass or will you benefit from that outcome in some way?

You have been a prominent proponent of betting exchanges. Are you hoping that this takeout increase will drive players out of the exotic pools clamoring for exchanges even if the take on such wagers would be increased dramatically as some here have predicted?

You just might be the last person I would tell of a way to keep the pari-mutuel game as we know it intact in order to avoid potential sabotage. ;)

[highnote]

Allow me to congratulate you on your excellent impersonation of a fat-bottomed doll that always bounces back regardless of how hard it is pushed away.

Thank you. I workout a lot to try to stay fit.


It was fun, but I’m getting finger-weary, and I don’t wish to encourage you to repeat yourself a 6th time, or refuse to answer (which is also part of this comedy we’re playing).

Tell you what, you quit hiding behind a veil of anonymity and I'll share some of my betting secrets. This is a bit hypocritical of you, don't you think? You wanted a role in HANA, but wouldn't tell anyone your name, but you expect me to tell you my betting methods?

You sometimes make good arguments, but it's hard to take them seriously because your desire for anonymity ruins your credibility.



You say that 1) you don’t think raising takeout is a good idea, Wrong. In the short term, it may be good for tracks to raise takeout because they may actually increase their profits. Right. in the short term it will hurt players. Right. In the long term it will probably be bad for tracks and very likely bad for players. There are subtle distinctions that I must not be making clearly enough because some people keep asking me about these recent posts of mine on this topic.


2) value players will eventually seek other forms of gambling/investment,

I would agree with that.

and 3) there is a burden on tracks to replenish their supply of "suckers and compulsive gamblers."

I would agree with that.

Why are you content to wait patiently for the inevitable while continuing to look for favorable situations that will probably occur less frequently?

Maybe I will lose patience sooner than I thought I would? I won't know until it happens. Maybe enough favorable situations will occur to keep me coming back for more? I don't know what the future holds. I can theorize and plan for certain outcomes, but I can not be certain those outcomes will ever happen.


Will you simply take satisfaction when the game tanks because the conditions you’ve predicted actually come to pass or will you benefit from that outcome in some way?

Why would I take satisfaction seeing an industry I have been a part of for the past 20 or so years tank?

You have been a prominent proponent of betting exchanges. Are you hoping that this takeout increase will drive players out of the exotic pools clamoring for exchanges even if the take on such wagers would be increased dramatically as some here have predicted?

I haven't given it much thought to be honest. I have always been a proponent of betting exchanges, but I thought the industry should run their own -- maybe Equibase -- with every track listed on the exchange.


You just might be the last person I would tell of a way to keep the pari-mutuel game as we know it intact in order to avoid potential sabotage. ;)

Please don't hold back. The suspense is overwhelming. I'm sure it will be such a great idea that I will read about it here on PA and everyone will be giving you credit. ;)

Actually, I hope you do have some solution that will save the industry. But if your idea is to increase in takeout then please keep it to yourself! :D

[Indulto]

... Tell you what, you quit hiding behind a veil of anonymity and I'll share some of my betting secrets. This is a bit hypocritical of you, don't you think? You wanted a role in HANA, but wouldn't tell anyone your name, but you expect me to tell you my betting methods?

You sometimes make good arguments, but it's hard to take them seriously because your desire for anonymity ruins your credibility.I don’t expect you to tell me anything. I’m not interested in your betting methods -- secret or otherwise. I’m just tired of your name-dropping and insider idolizing. My questions were intended to determine the credibility of your latest “hypothesis” and, frankly, all you’ve proven is that you can be as long-winded without delivering any substance as ever.

That might make you valuable as a cyber-sparring-partner, and I’d never deny your contribution as a catalyst in the formation of HANA, but your leadership and organizational capabilities proved as invisible as my identity. I only got to engage a few other active members before anonymity became a line in the sand, and it was great to work with them before I finally understood that a level-playing field was something most only gave lip-service to. The blog startup was an exciting and rewarding experience, but I’m comfortable that my advocacy for the recreational bettor has been more effective outside of HANA than it ever would have been inside it. Perhaps HANA and I both dodged bullets as I found the subsequent lack of transparency toward the general membership by those who opposed anonymity -- yourself included -- to be hypocritical.

If HANA decides to lead the boycott JP is now exploring, the entire membership will have to be become informed and engaged to bring it off. Too bad you’ve already concluded that a boycott is “unnecessary.”

[highnote]

I don’t expect you to tell me anything. I’m not interested in your betting methods -- secret or otherwise.

Then why did you ask?


I’m just tired of your name-dropping and insider idolizing.

Then why do you keep reading my posts and criticizing me?


My questions were intended to determine the credibility of your latest “hypothesis” and, frankly, all you’ve proven is that you can be as long-winded without delivering any substance as ever.

My hypothesis is that as takeout approaches 100% the number of positive expectation bets approaches zero. Do you disagree with that? If you do, fine. I am certain it is correct.

but your leadership and organizational capabilities proved as invisible as my identity.

No shit Dick Tracey. Why do you think I removed myself from the HANA board? Jeff is 10 times better at being president than I ever was. It takes a lot of time to lead a non-profit. Frankly, I could not make the time commitment.

I only got to engage a few other active members before anonymity became a line in the sand, and it was great to work with them before I finally understood that a level-playing field was something most only gave lip-service to.

What if Jeff Platt insisted upon anonymity? What is he supposed to do, go on TVG wearing a mask and use a device to change his voice?

Your anonymity ruined your credibility. No one else did. You did.


The blog startup was an exciting and rewarding experience, but I’m comfortable that my advocacy for the recreational bettor has been more effective outside of HANA than it ever would have been inside it.

Fine. Why don't you start a recreational bettor advocacy group of your own?

Perhaps HANA and I both dodged bullets as I found the subsequent lack of transparency toward the general membership by those who opposed anonymity -- yourself included -- to be hypocritical.[/font]

No one says you can't be anonymous. It's just that board members of a non-profit group should be known. It would be stupid to have an anonymous board member.

To be a member of HANA you only need an email address if memory serves me correctly.



If HANA decides to lead the boycott JP is now exploring, the entire membership will have to be become informed and engaged to bring it off. Too bad you’ve already concluded that a boycott is “unnecessary.”


There is a boycott going on as we speak. Have you not looked at attendance and wagering figures? I think that making a public statement about a having a boycott is a fine idea. I can't promise I'll be a part of it, but I am not against the idea.

[Indulto]

So, sj, you’re finally willing to get down and dirty? OK let’s do it.Then why did you ask?Because you offered nothing in support of your hypothesis.Then why do you keep reading my posts and criticizing me?Because they’re out there and you deserve it. Why do you keep responding? You once made a big deal about putting me on ignore. What happened?My hypothesis is that as takeout approaches 100% the number of positive expectation bets approaches zero. Do you disagree with that? If you do, fine. I am certain it is correct.There you go again. BTW certainty is no substitute for credibility.No shit Dick Tracey. Why do you think I removed myself from the HANA board? Jeff is 10 times better at being president than I ever was. It takes a lot of time to lead a non-profit. Frankly, I could not make the time commitment.Lucky for horseplayers. ;) What if Jeff Platt insisted upon anonymity? What is he supposed to do, go on TVG wearing a mask and use a device to change his voice?There is a need for highly visible individuals with media skills, and there is a need for people with time available who are willing to contribute outside the limelight. You and your ego chose to pursue a visible role. I never sought one.Your anonymity ruined your credibility. No one else did. You did.I believe what people have to say is more important than who they are, which is why I seldom give your frequently unsubstantiated drivel a free pass. Apparently at least a majority of team members at the time were uncomfortable with anonymity, or maybe it simply provided an easy excuse to jettison a voice some considered problematic with respect to rebates, high wager minimums, and/or collective action. I’ll probably never know, but I sure wouldn’t trade whatever credibility I may have for yours.Fine. Why don't you start a recreational bettor advocacy group of your own?What makes you think one doesn’t already exist?No one says you can't be anonymous.You specifically stated that you had to know who everyone was.It's just that board members of a non-profit group should be known. It would be stupid to have an anonymous board member.A board member's signature is certainly required to incorporate. However, do not former team members continue to participate -- providing input and receiving feedback by internet and telephone -- without voting on the board?To be a member of HANA you only need an email address if memory serves me correctly.That was initially the case, but the last time I looked, signups required names once anonymity ceased to be acceptable. I’m amazed you can’t remember your own priorities.There is a boycott going on as we speak. Have you not looked at attendance and wagering figures? I think that making a public statement about a having a boycott is a fine idea. I can't promise I'll be a part of it, but I am not against the idea.Even though you think it's "unnecessary?" See what I mean?

[highnote]

Then why do you keep reading my posts and criticizing me?


Because they're out there and you deserve it.

So you feel that because someone puts a post "out there" that the person who made the post deserves to be criticized. It's interesting the way you think. You just admitted you're a troll.

Only a spiteful person would feel the way you do. Whether someone is putting out good or bad suggestions that person does NOT deserve to be criticized.

A person's posts might be subject to criticism but the person making the post doesn't deserve anything but respect for making the post.

It is clear that you are not interested in helping horseplayers. You're only interested in being an instigating troll.

[Indulto]

So you feel that because someone puts a post "out there" that the person who made the post deserves to be criticized. It's interesting the way you think. You just admitted you're a troll.

Only a spiteful person would feel the way you do. Whether someone is putting out good or bad suggestions that person does NOT deserve to be criticized.

A person's posts might be subject to criticism but the person making the post doesn't deserve anything but respect for making the post.

It is clear that you are not interested in helping horseplayers. You're only interested in being an instigating troll.Nice exit line. Too bad you were inadvertently provided the opportunity to run away, but I'm sure you would have found some other pretext. I actually meant that your thinking deserved it, but as it came out the way it did, perhaps on some subconcious level there's more to it.

Once again, congratulations on avoiding the issues raised.

[highnote]

Nice exit line. Too bad you were inadvertently provided the opportunity to run away, but I'm sure you would have found some other pretext. I actually meant that your thinking deserved it, but as it came out the way it did, perhaps on some subconcious level there's more to it.

Once again, congratulations on avoiding the issues raised.


Believe me, I'm not running away. I can match wits with you any day.

I had responses to all your replies, but when I realized that all you want is to keep the argument going rather than actually contribute to the horseplayer body of knowledge then I figured it was time let it go. There is no point in arguing with someone whose posts come across as a 16 year old troll. It's not that important to me.

You might want to read "The Psychology of Winning, An Introduction to Win Therapy", by Howard Sartin. Page 36. The Drama Triangle.

It's time for me to play the role of adult and get off the drama triangle. I'm sure you can find someone else to play the game with you.

When you are ready to contribute and not criticize and quit trying to start a pissing contest then I will be more than happy to talk and have a conversation with you.

Best to you...

PS
Better yet email me and we can take this off line so the other horseplayers don't have to waste their time.

[Indulto]

Believe me, I'm not running away. I can match wits with you any day.

I had responses to all your replies, but …But?… when I realized that all you want is to keep the argument going rather than actually contribute to the horseplayer body of knowledge then I figured it was time let it go. There is no point in arguing with someone whose posts come across as a 16 year old troll. It's not that important to me.And you came to that conclusion after how many posts?You might want to read "The Psychology of Winning, An Introduction to Win Therapy", by Howard Sartin. Page 36. The Drama Triangle.

It's time for me to play the role of adult and get off the drama triangle. I'm sure you can find someone else to play the game with you.It’s amazing how quickly you “grew up!”When you are ready to contribute and not criticize and quit trying to start a pissing contest then I will be more than happy to talk and have a conversation with you.Don’t wait up. You’ll only disappear again when the going gets tough.Best to you...

PS
Better yet email me and we can take this off line so the other horseplayers don't have to waste their time.You know where to find me.

No matter how you try and spin this, you’re folding your cards.

[highnote]

But?And you came to that conclusion after how many posts?It’s amazing how quickly you “grew up!”Don’t wait up. You’ll only disappear again when the going gets tough.You know where to find me.

No matter how you try and spin this, you’re folding your cards.


Since it will probably make you feel better, I concede that I am folding my cards.

This thread is about the Pros and Cons of rebates not about us. I will email you and we can discuss it privately if you so choose.

[Indulto]

Since it will probably make you feel better,Your concern is misplaced.I concede that I am folding my cards.You’re belaboring the obvious.This thread is about the Pros and Cons of rebates not about us.This thread is whatever it evolved into. The pros and cons of rebating have been debated on this site ad nauseam, and nothing new was contributed this time, either.I will email you and we can discuss it privately if you so choose.I have no interest in private conversations at this point. If you have something you want to get off your chest, feel free to do so.

[highnote]

I will email you and we can discuss it privately if you so choose.

I have no interest in private conversations at this point. If you have something you want to get off your chest, feel free to do so.


I sent you an email, but I didn't think you'd reply to me because you need an audience.

However, I don't require an audience in order to have a debate with you. I will send you my replies from now on, privately, via email.

[Track Collector]

The best solution is an across-the-board takeout reduction for everyone.

Rebates are the next best solution, as they lower the effective takeout for those who receive them. Rebates (at varying levels) are available to almost everyone who choose to pursue them.

[highnote]

The best solution is an across-the-board takeout reduction for everyone.

Rebates are the next best solution, as they lower the effective takeout for those who receive them. Rebates (at varying levels) are available to almost everyone who choose to pursue them.

TC,
I agree. Across the board reduction is the most fair way to do it.

Problem is, California just raised takeout. That was not fair to bettors. A rebate is the best solution in this case.

Tracks should consider giving rebates to on-track bettors.

[BillW]

TC,

Problem is, California just raised takeout. That was not fair to bettors. A rebate is the best solution in this case.


Calif. selectively blocks rebates by their source market fee (6.5% max ADW hold) thus preventing rebates to the common man.

[Indulto]

I sent you an email, but I didn't think you'd reply to me because you need an audience.I don’t think I need an audience as much as a witness. ;) You’re really not much on transparency, are you?However, I don’t require an audience in order to have a debate with you.Given your inclination for name-calling when frustrated, an audience might be a liability.I will send you my replies from now on, privately, via email.Emails are shared even more easily than public posts. I suspect you already have a continuing audience that has pressured you to respond privately in an attempt to spare you any further public own-foot-shooting.

I just received your email and I don’t see why it couldn’t have been posted publicly, but I’ll respect your privacy from this point on, and respond later via PM since that editor and formatting are easier for me to use.

[highnote]

I'd prefer we just knock it off and stick to the topic. One thing I do not do is lie. So you can believe me that I would never share a private correspondence with anyone. But since you don't know me, I can understand why you would be hesitant to take me at face value.

And you don't even have to respond to my email. Consider it water under the bridge. Let bygones be bygones, etc etc etc

I don’t think I need an audience as much as a witness. ;) You’re really not much on transparency, are you?Given your inclination for name-calling when frustrated, an audience might be a liability.Emails are shared even more easily than public posts. I suspect you already have a continuing audience that has pressured you to respond privately in an attempt to spare you any further public own-foot-shooting.

I just received your email and I don’t see why it couldn’t have been posted publicly, but I’ll respect your privacy from this point on, and respond later via PM since that editor and formatting are easier for me to use.

[highnote]

Calif. selectively blocks rebates by their source market fee (6.5% max ADW hold) thus preventing rebates to the common man.

I am not an expert in ADW/track agreements. How does a source fee prevent rebates?

I apologize in advance for my ignorance.

[highnote]

Calif. selectively blocks rebates by their source market fee (6.5% max ADW hold) thus preventing rebates to the common man.

By the way, how the heck did you ever find anything in this thread to post to? I can't believe you were willing to wade through all the shit. :D

[startngate]

I am not an expert in ADW/track agreements. How does a source fee prevent rebates?

I apologize in advance for my ignorance.Rebates are essentially a zero-sum game. An ADW that rebates will establish its rebate scale based on subtracting how much it wants to retain as profit plus its expenses from the takeout. What is left is the amount available for rebates.

So, if a source market fee is involved, that means the ADW's expenses increase for those customers subject to the SMF, and rebates (at least for them) must therefore go down.

In the case of California, the ADW is allowed to 'hold' a maximum of 6.5% (although the TOC only approves an even lower amount), and the rest is returned to CA based on a formula that includes the host fee and source market fee. The 6.5% would be the theoretical maximum an ADW would have available to use as a rebate, but they also have to pay all of their expenses and keep something for profit out of that amount first.

BillW correctly states that this doesn't leave very much for the ADW to rebate with.

[BillW]

By the way, how the heck did you ever find anything in this thread to post to? I can't believe you were willing to wade through all the shit. :D

No wading, I cherrypicked the last post :p


BTW, what startngate said! :ThmbUp:

[highnote]

startngate -- it took a few days, but what you wrote made me hypothesize the following:

I would guess that many players who get rebates break even or lose a little before the rebate. Some horseplayers who get rebates probably lose a lot more than the rebate.

So, in a sense the ADW where the player sends his bets is allowing the bettor to be a partner. In return for the bettor being a partner and sending the bets through their ADW, the ADW gives the bettor a cut of the commission that the ADW earns from the racetrack. I see nothing wrong with this. The ADW, like any business, is free to spend its revenue any way it chooses.

As far as I can see on any given bet the rebated player does not have a bigger edge than the player who bets without a rebate.

This is no different than a bettor using extra income from a part time job to bet with. Those extra dollars bet with the money from the part time job may give the bettor a slight edge over people who have less money. In fact, whoever has the most money probably has an edge because they will probably bet more and therefore, can cover more combinations. However, they still have to win, otherwise they are helping all the other bettors by losing money.

With respect to takeout, the takeout that is used to determine the odds does not change. I would argue that rebate money is spread across the odds range in the same proportion as the non-rebated money. So all the rebate does is add liquidity. This extra liquidity allows large bettors to bet more without affecting the odds which generates more revenue for the tracks, the horsemen and the state.

My hypothesis is that the transaction between the rebating ADW and the horseplayer does not affect the odds.

Additionally, a rebated player has no obligation to bet the rebate funds she receives. However, the hope is that the player does bet her rebate. The bettor who bets her rebate generates more revenue for the racetrak, she generates more revenue for the ADW, she generates more revenue for the horsemen, she generates more revenue for the state, she helps maintain a higher level of liquidity in the pools and a portion of the bets that comes from the rebates also generates additional rebates, which echoes through the system again until the cycle ends.

It seems to me the benefits of rebates outweighs anything negative about them.


Rebates are essentially a zero-sum game. An ADW that rebates will establish its rebate scale based on subtracting how much it wants to retain as profit plus its expenses from the takeout. What is left is the amount available for rebates.

So, if a source market fee is involved, that means the ADW's expenses increase for those customers subject to the SMF, and rebates (at least for them) must therefore go down.

In the case of California, the ADW is allowed to 'hold' a maximum of 6.5% (although the TOC only approves an even lower amount), and the rest is returned to CA based on a formula that includes the host fee and source market fee. The 6.5% would be the theoretical maximum an ADW would have available to use as a rebate, but they also have to pay all of their expenses and keep something for profit out of that amount first.

BillW correctly states that this doesn't leave very much for the ADW to rebate with.

[Stillriledup]

startngate -- it took a few days, but what you wrote made me hypothesize the following:

I would guess that many players who get rebates break even or lose a little before the rebate. Some horseplayers who get rebates probably lose a lot more than the rebate.

So, in a sense the ADW where the player sends his bets is allowing the bettor to be a partner. In return for the bettor being a partner and sending the bets through their ADW, the ADW gives the bettor a cut of the commission that the ADW earns from the racetrack. I see nothing wrong with this. The ADW, like any business, is free to spend its revenue any way it chooses.

As far as I can see on any given bet the rebated player does not have a bigger edge than the player who bets without a rebate.

This is no different than a bettor using extra income from a part time job to bet with. Those extra dollars bet with the money from the part time job may give the bettor a slight edge over people who have less money. In fact, whoever has the most money probably has an edge because they will probably bet more and therefore, can cover more combinations. However, they still have to win, otherwise they are helping all the other bettors by losing money.

With respect to takeout, the takeout that is used to determine the odds does not change. I would argue that rebate money is spread across the odds range in the same proportion as the non-rebated money. So all the rebate does is add liquidity. This extra liquidity allows large bettors to bet more without affecting the odds which generates more revenue for the tracks, the horsemen and the state.

My hypothesis is that the transaction between the rebating ADW and the horseplayer does not affect the odds.

Additionally, a rebated player has no obligation to bet the rebate funds she receives. However, the hope is that the player does bet her rebate. The bettor who bets her rebate generates more revenue for the racetrak, she generates more revenue for the ADW, she generates more revenue for the horsemen, she generates more revenue for the state, she helps maintain a higher level of liquidity in the pools and a portion of the bets that comes from the rebates also generates additional rebates, which echoes through the system again until the cycle ends.

It seems to me the benefits of rebates outweighs anything negative about them.


Great post!

This is what i've been saying all along. People think rebate players have some sort of edge in the pools, but the only edge they have does not affect non rebated players at all and if anything, helps them because there's more padding in the pools and more money that's spread around 'dutching' the pools. Rebate players are the best thing that ever happened to non rebate players because plenty of rebate players bet tons of different combinations. Rebate players don't make picks, they spread their money around on a ton of different combos....in other words, they are really not handicappers but people who are arbitraging the pools. Non rebate players ought to be able to take advantage of this.

Some rebate players have computers telling them to bet: 500 on #1, 87 dollars on #2, 323 dollars on #3 and so on and so forth. THIS type of betting is nothing but good for the minnow.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Rebate players do have a negative impact on the non-rebated players. If there was no advantage in the rebate then people would not ask for them in the first place

Let's say a horse is a break even proposition at the odds of 3.00. What big rebate players like to do is bet that horse down to odds of 2.90 for those with no rebates. The person with the rebate gets an effective price of 3.10

So the non rebated player can bet the same horse as the rebated player. Yet in the long run the non rebated player goes broke while the rebated player makes money. This is not fair

In the long run this can be a big advantage for the rebated players as they can effectively kill off other smart money in the pools and ensure they are just betting against uneducated money

If there were no rebates then the big players who want to win would not be able to bet this 3.00 horse below 3.00

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Let's say a horse is a break even proposition at the odds of 3.00. What big rebate players like to do is bet that horse down to odds of 2.90 for those with no rebates. The person with the rebate gets an effective price of 3.10

What happens when they bet the 3.00 down to 2.90 and the horse that goes from 10.00 to 10.30 because of that bet wins the race?

[Stillriledup]

Rebate players do have a negative impact on the non-rebated players. If there was no advantage in the rebate then people would not ask for them in the first place

Let's say a horse is a break even proposition at the odds of 3.00. What big rebate players like to do is bet that horse down to odds of 2.90 for those with no rebates. The person with the rebate gets an effective price of 3.10

So the non rebated player can bet the same horse as the rebated player. Yet in the long run the non rebated player goes broke while the rebated player makes money. This is not fair

In the long run this can be a big advantage for the rebated players as they can effectively kill off other smart money in the pools and ensure they are just betting against uneducated money

If there were no rebates then the big players who want to win would not be able to bet this 3.00 horse below 3.00

Some people are making the argument that the rebate players money in the pools somehow affects them negatively.

Sure, its pretty obvious that a rebated player is going to have more money at the end of the day with all things being equal, but some are arguing that the rebate players presence hurts the non rebate players somehow.

As far as it being 'fair' or not, its fair. If you were in a bakery and wanted to purchase one doughnut at 99 cents and then 2 seconds later, a guy walked in and said "i want 100 doughnuts, can you give me a discount" and the baker said, "sure, i'll give you 100 doughnuts and only charge you 59 cents per doughnut" Would you say to the baker, "HEY, i just paid 99 cents, why can't i have a 59 cent doughut?"

The Baker would say, "you can have your 59 cent doughnut, just buy 100 of them and you can have it".

Does that make sense, or do you still think its not fair that you have to pay 99 cents for a single doughnut?

[salty]

I think I've realized that I don't play with big enough money to really care about rebates. In my case since i usualy only have time to play the races for a whole day on the weekend. I place a couple bets throughout the week. So if I did have a rebate it wouldn't come out to a whole lot of money at least not enough to make a noticeable change to the size of my wallet.

I think it would be better if tracks cheapened the cost of food and added some fun things for families to do between races. The closest track i can go to is Suffolk Downs. If you have never been there all i can say is no wonder why some tracks aren't attracting new people. The grandstand is completely empty most of the time. There is a very sparce crowd arround the paddock/fence at the finish line, maybe 1 in 3 benches occupied. All the people are in the simulcasting area yelling at eachother because there is only one screen for each track and some are on 20 inch old tvs. I saw multiple incidents where someones head got in the way and someone else lost their head. Nevermind giving me a rebate. Get me at least a little bit of a crowd watching the live races. Some beer at more reasonable prices, maybe a 1.50 hotdog? I think I would have more fun if I didn't know that I just spent over $20 for two orders of 5 peice cicken nuggets with fries.

[Robert Goren]

I think I can safely say that most of the money that is bet by players with a rebate would not be bet without the rebate at the present takeout rates. I suspect that rebate players lower the odds on short priced favorites and bet very late causing the odds to change after the gates open. If you are betting horses with odds of 5/1 or higher, they are good thing. If you bet favorites, they are bad thing.

[lamboguy]

when my family does its shopping for food the supermarket rewards us with points that we can use to buy gasoline. for every $100 you spend in grocery's they give you .10 off a gallon of gasoline. we wait until we have spent $1000 at the supermarket and that happens about once a month, by that time my car has less than a quarter tank left. we bring 4 different cars to the gas station and and save about $50 in total off the gas price.

i think this is the same physcology behind rebates for horseplayers, the more you bet the more rebate you get. every system has inefficiencies in them and just like we have exploited the discount for gasoline, horse rebate players will also do the same.

if anyone wants they can get rebates in horses if you live in the right state. it is racing's idea how to service their customers. it cost the very same thing to service a $2.00 bettor and a $50 better, yet the profit margins are much larger with the higher bettor even after the rebate.

a smaller bettor should like the system because it gives them a chance to get the bigger guy's money. without rebates the big guys would take up something else.

[Rutgers]

What happens when they bet the 3.00 down to 2.90 and the horse that goes from 10.00 to 10.30 because of that bet wins the race?

It pays $22.60, but is still probably an underlay. Of course, it also possible that the odds on that horse were bet down by another player or players with rebates where they receive fair value, but non-rebated players do not.

[Rutgers]

Some people are making the argument that the rebate players money in the pools somehow affects them negatively.

Sure, its pretty obvious that a rebated player is going to have more money at the end of the day with all things being equal, but some are arguing that the rebate players presence hurts the non rebate players somehow.

As far as it being 'fair' or not, its fair. If you were in a bakery and wanted to purchase one doughnut at 99 cents and then 2 seconds later, a guy walked in and said "i want 100 doughnuts, can you give me a discount" and the baker said, "sure, i'll give you 100 doughnuts and only charge you 59 cents per doughnut" Would you say to the baker, "HEY, i just paid 99 cents, why can't i have a 59 cent doughut?"

The Baker would say, "you can have your 59 cent doughnut, just buy 100 of them and you can have it".

Does that make sense, or do you still think its not fair that you have to pay 99 cents for a single doughnut?


Here is an example I used in an earlier post about rebates.

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.




Comparing pari-mutual wagering to selling doughnuts is not a valid comparison. When you buy doughnuts, it is a transaction between two parties, the baker and the customer, and nobody else. When you make a pari-mutual wager it is a transaction between every bettor in the pool, not just two parties. Rebating is favoring certain parties in the transaction. And because it is pari-mutual wagering when you favor some, you do that at the expense of the others in the pools. Once again, you can debate whether it is fair or not, but how long do you think people with little or no rebates are going to last?

[Ernie Dahlman]

Here is an example I used in an earlier post about rebates.

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.

$1000 rebate on a $2000 win bet. Where do I sign up?

[highnote]

Let's say a horse is a break even proposition at the odds of 3.00. What big rebate players like to do is bet that horse down to odds of 2.90 for those with no rebates.

How do you know that is what "big rebate" players do?

How do you know they don't spread the money around to other horses?

If they are knocking the fav down then others must go up.

How do you know some other big rebate player is not knocking the 5-1 down to 9/2?

How do you know there isn't some other big rebate player knocking the 20-1 down to 15-1?

If they are all trying to knock the odds down on other horses then which horses are going up?

How do you know that there isn't some bettor with a part time job who is using his extra money to knock a horse's odds down? Should he not be allowed to bet the money from his part time job because it might give him an advantage?

I contend the rebate money gets spread across all odds ranges and pads the pools.




If there were no rebates then the big players who want to win would not be able to bet this 3.00 horse below 3.00

Big players will always bet a 3.00 horse to below 3.00 if they think his he is still fair value at 2.90. Big players will always have the ability to affect the odds.

[Rutgers]

[QUOTE=Rutgers]Here is an example I used in an earlier post about rebates.

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.

$1000 rebate on a $2000 win bet. Where do I sign up?

In the post I did say it was not very realistic, but used 50% to make the math easier for both me typing it and for people to understand. The purpose of the post was to help show people the effect of some players getting a rebate have on others who do not, it was not to illustrate what type of rebates are available to players. I apologize for any confusion I may of caused.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

In the post I did say it was not very realistic, but used 50% to make the math easier for both me typing it and for people to understand.

Not very realistic?

The rebate on a $2000 win bet at tracks like SoCal, NYRA, Kee, etc. where a bettor could actually make a bet that big would be $80-$120.

Pretty dumb to use $1000 when $100 was the right number.

[highnote]

Not very realistic?

The rebate on a $2000 win bet at tracks like SoCal, NYRA, Kee, etc. where a bettor could actually make a bet that big would be $80-$120.

Pretty dumb to use $1000 when $100 was the right number.


Also, that extra rebate money of $100, if it was bet on a 3.00 horse is not going to knock it down to 2.90 at a place like belmont.

Additionally, I doubt the rebate player gets an instantaneous rebate. It probably doesn't hit his account for a day or two or three.

[Stillriledup]

Here is an example I used in an earlier post about rebates.

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.




Comparing pari-mutual wagering to selling doughnuts is not a valid comparison. When you buy doughnuts, it is a transaction between two parties, the baker and the customer, and nobody else. When you make a pari-mutual wager it is a transaction between every bettor in the pool, not just two parties. Rebating is favoring certain parties in the transaction. And because it is pari-mutual wagering when you favor some, you do that at the expense of the others in the pools. Once again, you can debate whether it is fair or not, but how long do you think people with little or no rebates are going to last?


Excellent post, thanks for replying.

I think that the difference is this. The small bettor knows that he will get 3-1 on a 3-1 shot. The big bettor knows that he will get 2-1 on HIS 3-1 shot. This is where the rebate evens it out.

Your example is saying that the non rebate player is 'suffering' because someone else bet on his horse and the price went down. That's pari mutuel wagering and just tough luck if you are a small bettor who bets on a 3-1 at 0 MTP and it goes down to 5-2.

The key is this. The 2 dollar bettor has every opportunity to make sure that the 3-1 shots he's betting end up going OFF at 3-1, where as the big bettor does not. The big player's bets affect his own odds, so in reality, the big bettor who's betting on the 3-1 shot, is automatically, 100% of the time, getting 5-2 or 2-1 where the small bettor is going to get 3-1 most of the time, and only a small part of the time, he's going to get 5-2 or 2-1.

If you are a 2 dollar bettor and wager on a 3-1 and he goes down to 2-1 last flash, you can't say, "ugh, a rebate bettor screwed me" because you don't know if the money that was bet was bet by a rebate player or just a guy who got an inheritance from his long lost grandma.

[rwwupl]

The design of the pari-mutuel system dictates that the participants compete with each other, with the facilitator taking off the top.

Richard Duchossois quote in the DRF in 1994..."We are a participatory sport, not a spectator sport. Our bettors are competing against each other. This fact should be a marketing focus."

Nothing can be more unfair than to give certain contestants a head start by making the cost of the bet less for one than another. It is obvious that all other things equal the player with the less cost of the bet will last longer,churn more money and have a big advantage over the player who pays more for the bet.

Horse racing suffers from this invisable but unequal playing field. ALL bets, to all players should cost the same. ALL players would benefit, It would not cost the rebated players more, the un-rebated players would be equal, and the game would allow new players to win more often, growing the fan base,making larger pools and a level playing field.

You have to realize as an example the California based players are paying full boat(rebates are restricted by law) and their excess cost of the bet is subsidizing out of state California players with rebates. This puts the contestants at odds with each other in another way, and those who get the rebates think that is swell, and those who do not get the rebates think that it stinks... and the game suffers from no new players... can you blame them?

At a minimum, it is plain old favoritism of one player over another.

Without a level playing field, the pari-mutuel system does not work as designed... and our game suffers.

rwwupl

[highnote]

I understand what you're saying, but I see it differently.

The cost of the bet to a rebated player is the same as the cost to a non-rebated player -- the takeout is identical.

The rebated player is a partner with the ADW and the ADW is a partner with the track. The player who has a good ADW partner gets a percentage of the amount the racetrack is willing to pay the ADW for sending business to the track. "Incentive" is probably a better description than rebate.

Not all rebate money necessarily goes back to the track. Some players may take the rebate and buy a new boat or maybe they even take it and bet it at a track that offers no rebate.

And if the rebate money does get bet again it is padding on the pools which benefits everyone because rebates probably get bet proportionally across the odds range.

If the takeout is identical to all players then I don't see that the rebated players have an advantage.

The churned rebate benefits the ADW, the tracks, the horsemen and all other bettors because of the padding in the pools.

Any negatives are far outweighed by all the positives.

Rebated players can't help it if CA has stupid laws. CA players need to grab the bull by the horns and do something about it rather than complain that rebated players have an advantage. If there is an advantage it is not that much and as I said the benefits of rebates are greater than the disadvantages rebates "may" cause.




The design of the pari-mutuel system dictates that the participants compete with each other, with the facilitator taking off the top.

Richard Duchossois quote in the DRF in 1994..."We are a participatory sport, not a spectator sport. Our bettors are competing against each other. This fact should be a marketing focus."

Nothing can be more unfair than to give certain contestants a head start by making the cost of the bet less for one than another. It is obvious that all other things equal the player with the less cost of the bet will last longer,churn more money and have a big advantage over the player who pays more for the bet.

Horse racing suffers from this invisable but unequal playing field. ALL bets, to all players should cost the same. ALL players would benefit, It would not cost the rebated players more, the un-rebated players would be equal, and the game would allow new players to win more often, growing the fan base,making larger pools and a level playing field.

You have to realize as an example the California based players are paying full boat(rebates are restricted by law) and their excess cost of the bet is subsidizing out of state California players with rebates. This puts the contestants at odds with each other in another way, and those who get the rebates think that is swell, and those who do not get the rebates think that it stinks... and the game suffers from no new players... can you blame them?

At a minimum, it is plain old favoritism of one player over another.

Without a level playing field, the pari-mutuel system does not work as designed... and our game suffers.

rwwupl

[Indulto]

The design of the pari-mutuel system dictates that the participants compete with each other, with the facilitator taking off the top.

Richard Duchossois quote in the DRF in 1994..."We are a participatory sport, not a spectator sport. Our bettors are competing against each other. This fact should be a marketing focus."

Nothing can be more unfair than to give certain contestants a head start by making the cost of the bet less for one than another. It is obvious that all other things equal the player with the less cost of the bet will last longer,churn more money and have a big advantage over the player who pays more for the bet.

Horse racing suffers from this invisable but unequal playing field. ALL bets, to all players should cost the same. ALL players would benefit, It would not cost the rebated players more, the un-rebated players would be equal, and the game would allow new players to win more often, growing the fan base,making larger pools and a level playing field.

You have to realize as an example the California based players are paying full boat(rebates are restricted by law) and their excess cost of the bet is subsidizing out of state California players with rebates. This puts the contestants at odds with each other in another way, and those who get the rebates think that is swell, and those who do not get the rebates think that it stinks... and the game suffers from no new players... can you blame them?

At a minimum, it is plain old favoritism of one player over another.

Without a level playing field, the pari-mutuel system does not work as designed... and our game suffers.

rwwuplI'm so grateful you showed up here, rw.:jump:

Keep on refuting this nonsense. no matter how many others call you grumpy, jealous, unknowledgeable, or of insufficient character to wager large amounts. :ThmbUp:

I suspect that most of those who are truly cognizant of all facets of the rebated player's advantage are unwilling to say anything that might end the practice.:bang:

It sure must be nice to have a "partner" who makes money from the excess takeout diverted from payoffs and purses, and gives one a split whether or not one wins or loses so that one has a chance to show a profit even if the total pari-mutuel returns on one's wagers do not.

Even without whale-like rebates, how is it defensible the a rebated player betting from outside a state can purchase MORE exotic wager combinations for EFFECTIVELY the same amount as an unrebated player betting from within the state?

sj = spin job :lol:

[rwwupl]

Lets reverse the situation, and give the favorite sons from California a big rebate, and cut off all who are getting rebates now, and they can pay full boat and subsidize the California favorite sons.. I like that better, because I am for and from California and we put on the show.

I could make all sorts of silly arguments why that would be more fair... but lets stop the B.S. and agree that all bets should cost everyone the same.

If any one can not see and understand that.. I am wasting my time and yours.
rwwupl

[andymays]

In a perfect world there would be no rebates and takeout would be much lower. The game would be much healthier than it is now because the newbies wouldn't get wiped out so quickly and quite a few more would stick around to improve their skills.

[highnote]

You anti-rebaters think that all rebaters are making all this big time money. I highly doubt it. I am in the camp that thinks that most players lose -- even those who get rebates.

Those players who get rebates are padding the pools across the odds spectrum.

A good player should be able to pick her spots and make a make a nice profit on the backs of all the extra "dumb" money. Just because a person gets a rebate does not make him a good bettor. I know wealthy people who are terrible handicappers.

Besides, the problem is not that those outside CA get rebates. The problem is that those inside CA don't.

So you're complaining in the wrong forum. You need to complain to the legislature or whoever it is that makes the rules for CA.

[highnote]

Lets reverse the situation, and give the favorite sons from California a big rebate, and cut off all who are getting rebates now, and they can pay full boat and subsidize the California favorite sons.. I like that better, because I am for and from California and we put on the show.

I could make all sorts of silly arguments why that would be more fair... but lets stop the B.S. and agree that all bets should cost everyone the same.

If any one can not see and understand that.. I am wasting my time and yours.
rwwupl


If the situation was reversed then there really would be a boycott of CA racing! At least by those outside CA. :D

Every bet will never cost the same for everyone. Some ADWs are owned by players. The owners of ADWs who bet will always get a better price.

Unless the signal is sold to the ADW at the same cost as the takeout. In that case, ADWs would cease to exist because there would be no profit margin.

Tracks would then have to try to scramble for out-of-state bettors who would bet at their ADW -- like Churchill, I suppose.

Maybe that is the future?

When that happens you'll hear that so-called "great sucking sound" as money leaves the game and heads to off-shore betting parlors that are not licensed by U.S. tracks. Then you'd really hear some squealing -- and it wouldn't be the horses doing the squealing!

[andymays]

You anti-rebaters think that all rebaters are making all this big time money. I highly doubt it. I am in the camp that thinks that most players lose -- even those who get rebates.

Those players who get rebates are padding the pools across the odds spectrum.

A good player should be able to pick her spots and make a make a nice profit on the backs of all the extra "dumb" money. Just because a person gets a rebate does not make him a good bettor. I know wealthy people who are terrible handicappers.

Besides, the problem is not that those outside CA get rebates. The problem is that those inside CA don't.

So you're complaining in the wrong forum. You need to complain to the legislature or whoever it is that makes the rules for CA.

The big picture is the health of Horse Racing. The game would be better off with lower takeout for everyone and no rebates. What's not to get about that? It's not going to happen but we'd be better off if it did happen.

Rebates are a huge edge especially if they're significant.

[highnote]

The big picture is the health of Horse Racing. The game would be better off with lower takeout for everyone and no rebates. What's not to get about that? It's not going to happen but we'd be better off if it did happen.

I agree that lower takeouts would benefit everyone. However, I've made an argument about how the positive aspects of rebates outweigh the negative ones given that takeouts remain too high.

Now go and try to convince CA horsemen and racetracks to lower takeouts.

Rebates are a huge edge especially if they're significant.


How do you know they are a huge edge? What is your definition of significant?

I'll tell you what a huge edge is -- a huge edge is going to the racetrack and getting to know all the horses by sight. Watch them race live and in the flesh week after week and get to know how they look before and after a race. Maybe they always sweat in the paddock, so their kidney sweat you see today is no big deal. Maybe they never sweat and now they're sweating like they been given a kilo of lasix. Maybe they come back huffing and puffing because they needed a race. Maybe they come back without even having broken a sweat. Those things are significant and now you have an edge.

You only get that edge by going to the track and putting in your time. When you finally see that 20-1 shot who looks great in the paddock and know that he should be 3-1 you send it in. None of the computerized or ADW bettors can see what you see. You'll be thankful that the so-called "smart money" is flowing into the pools from all those dumb terminals.

[andymays]

I agree that lower takeouts would benefit everyone. However, I've made an argument about how the positive aspects of rebates outweigh the negative ones given that takeouts remain too high.

Now go and try to convince CA horsemen and racetracks to lower takeouts.




How do you know they are a huge edge? What is your definition of significant?

I'll tell you what a huge edge is -- a huge edge is going to the racetrack and getting to know all the horses by sight. Watch them race live and in the flesh week after week and get to know how they look before and after a race. Maybe they always sweat in the paddock, so their kidney sweat you see today is no big deal. Maybe they never sweat and now they're sweating like they been given a kilo of lasix. Maybe they come back huffing and puffing because they needed a race. Maybe they come back without even having broken a sweat. Those things are significant and now you have an edge.

You only get that edge by going to the track and putting in your time. When you finally see that 20-1 shot who looks great in the paddock and know that he should be 3-1 you send it in. None of the computerized or ADW bettors can see what you see. You'll be thankful that the so-called "smart money" is flowing into the pools from all those dumb terminals.

I appreciate the "how to play the horses" lesson. ;)

Arguing over whether or not significant rebates are a "significant" edge is total waste of time. They are.

[highnote]

Arguing over whether or not significant rebates are a "significant" edge is total waste of time. They are.

I respect your opinion, but I do not share your opinion.

If you or someone else can not take time to explain to me or policy makers how rebates are a significant edge then how do you expect me or policy makers to change our opinion -- and therefore, policy?

[andymays]

I respect your opinion, but I do not share your opinion.

If you or someone else can not take time to explain to me or policy makers how rebates are a significant edge then how do you expect me or policy makers to change our opinion -- and therefore, policy?

Significant rebates = "big edge" is a given and shouldn't require an explanation.

[Stillriledup]

The design of the pari-mutuel system dictates that the participants compete with each other, with the facilitator taking off the top.

Richard Duchossois quote in the DRF in 1994..."We are a participatory sport, not a spectator sport. Our bettors are competing against each other. This fact should be a marketing focus."

Nothing can be more unfair than to give certain contestants a head start by making the cost of the bet less for one than another. It is obvious that all other things equal the player with the less cost of the bet will last longer,churn more money and have a big advantage over the player who pays more for the bet.

Horse racing suffers from this invisable but unequal playing field. ALL bets, to all players should cost the same. ALL players would benefit, It would not cost the rebated players more, the un-rebated players would be equal, and the game would allow new players to win more often, growing the fan base,making larger pools and a level playing field.

You have to realize as an example the California based players are paying full boat(rebates are restricted by law) and their excess cost of the bet is subsidizing out of state California players with rebates. This puts the contestants at odds with each other in another way, and those who get the rebates think that is swell, and those who do not get the rebates think that it stinks... and the game suffers from no new players... can you blame them?

At a minimum, it is plain old favoritism of one player over another.

Without a level playing field, the pari-mutuel system does not work as designed... and our game suffers.

rwwupl


But Rog, here's what you're not factoring in. If you don't give some players a rebate, you're really charging them MORE to play. The 2 dollar bettor doesnt affect his own odds at all, if he bets a 3-1 shot, he gets 3-1. If the whale bets a 3-1, he gets 2-1. is that fair? Why should the 'better customer' have to pay MORE for a bulk purchase than a person who makes a single purchase?

The rebate gives the big player a chance to recoup some of the money he's winning from himself.

[highnote]

Significant rebates = "big edge" is a given and shouldn't require an explanation.

First of all, you have never defined what "significant" is. Is it 1%, is it 3%? Surely, 50% would be signficant, but no one gets 50%.

My definition of an edge is when you feel that the odds on a horse should be lower than they are.

If a horse is going off at 3-1 and a handicapper gets a 5% rebate on his $100 bet, he's still getting 3-1. In a few days or maybe a week, he might get $5 extra to bet when he gets his rebate. But maybe he doesn't bet it. Maybe he withdraws it and spends it somewhere else.

That rebate never hits the pool. Where is the big edge from this $5 rebate?

[andymays]

First of all, you have never defined what "significant" is. Is it 1%, is it 3%? Surely, 50% would be signficant, but no one gets 50%.

My definition of an edge is when you feel that the odds on a horse should be lower than they are.

If a horse is going off at 3-1 and a handicapper gets a 5% rebate on his $100 bet, he's still getting 3-1. In a few days or maybe a week, he might get $5 extra to bet when he gets his rebate. But maybe he doesn't bet it. Maybe he withdraws it and spends it somewhere else.

That rebate never hits the pool. Where is the big edge from this $5 rebate?

A $5 rebate is not significant. It's isn't unusual to get 10% rebates or more for exotics depending on the track and the level of play. In California the max for the biggest players is 3%. Of course under certain circumstances if you be enough they might rebate you off the books at a much higher rate.

[chickenhead]

But Rog, here's what you're not factoring in. If you don't give some players a rebate, you're really charging them MORE to play. The 2 dollar bettor doesnt affect his own odds at all, if he bets a 3-1 shot, he gets 3-1. If the whale bets a 3-1, he gets 2-1. is that fair? Why should the 'better customer' have to pay MORE for a bulk purchase than a person who makes a single purchase?

The rebate gives the big player a chance to recoup some of the money he's winning from himself.

The only problem with that example is the whales isn't getting charged more than anyone else that bet that horse, they all get 2-1 odds. All the $2 bettors that bet that horse also get 2-1 now, in your example. It doesn't matter whose money it was that moved the odds.

Big bets move pools, for everyone in the pool. Odds are the odds, and everyone shares them.

It's a great argument for booking exchanges, tho.

[highnote]

It's a great argument for booking exchanges, tho.


If a big bettor comes into an exchange and takes all the action at 3-1 then the next series of wagers on offer will probably be lower than 3-1.

The big bettor was lucky to lock in a price early, but other bettors after him probably won't be as lucky.

No matter what size the pool has or what form the pool has big bettors can move it.

[chickenhead]

If a big bettor comes into an exchange and takes all the action at 3-1 then the next series of wagers on offer will probably be lower than 3-1.

The big bettor was lucky to lock in a price early, but other bettors after him probably won't be as lucky.

No matter what size the pool has or what form the pool has big bettors can move it.

No, they can't move the odds for people who already bet. That's the difference. Everyone gets exactly what they thought they were going to get, always. This just simply does not exist in the parimutual system -- until the pool is closed and tabulated, nobody in the pool knows what their odds are with certainty.

[highnote]

A $5 rebate is not significant. It's isn't unusual to get 10% rebates or more for exotics depending on the track and the level of play. In California the max for the biggest players is 3%.


The takeouts on exotics are higher than the straight pools and they're harder to hit and players tend to play a lot of combinations, so the 10% might give a bettor a slight edge over a non-rebated player, but as I said before, all the negatives about rebates do not outweigh their positives.

I agree, lower takeouts would be better for everyone. But players outside of CA have virtually nothing to do with policy making in CA. And very little incentive to get involved with trying to change CA policy.

CA tracks and horsemen benefit greatly from the betting of rebated players. CA players benefit from the bets of rebated players, too. Without rebated players betting fields would be even smaller or there would be fewer days of racing or more racetracks might close.

Of course under certain circumstances if you be[t] enough they might rebate you off the books at a much higher rate.

I am highly skeptical of this claim.

[highnote]

No, they can't move the odds for people who already bet. That's the difference. Everyone gets exactly what they thought they were going to get. This just simply does not exist in the parimutual system -- until the pool is closed and tabulated, nobody in the pool knows the exact odds with certainty.


You are correct that in fixed odds betting the odds don't move for people who have already bet.

However, the odds do move for people who bet after them. Over time, bettors who get fixed odds or pari-mutuel odds probably tend to get some "mean" price on their bets.

Sometimes a fixed odds bettor will get in early and get a great price, and sometime the fixed odds bettor will have to accept a low price -- or not bet.

In pari-mutuel, sometimes the bettor will end up with great odds and other times low odds.

Over time both bettors will probably find out that their bets revert toward some mean level.

A winning bettor will have a higher mean level than a losing bettor (actually, this may not be true in all cases), but both are subject to mean reversion.

It's really almost just a matter of the betting experience you prefer to have as you try to find your mean.

[andymays]

The takeouts on exotics are higher than the straight pools and they're harder to hit and players tend to play a lot of combinations, so the 10% might give a bettor a slight edge over a non-rebated player, but as I said before, all the negatives about rebates do not outweigh their positives.

I agree, lower takeouts would be better for everyone. But players outside of CA have virtually nothing to do with policy making in CA. And very little incentive to get involved with trying to change CA policy.

CA tracks and horsemen benefit greatly from the betting of rebated players. CA players benefit from the bets of rebated players, too. Without rebated players betting fields would be even smaller or there would be fewer days of racing or more racetracks might close.



I am highly skeptical of this claim.


In short you're telling me that I should be glad that other players in other states get significant rebates even though I don't because it benefits me and California racing. Hmmmm. I don't think so.

It's good to be skeptical.

[highnote]

In short you're telling me that I should be glad that other players in other states get significant rebates even though I don't because it benefits me and California racing. Hmmmm. I don't think so.

It's good to be skeptical.


Given the high takeout environment, it benefits you to the extent of those things I pointed out 3 or 4 times in earlier posts -- liquidity in the pools, etc.

Now, if you Californians can get your act together and do something to get the takeouts lowered then everyone will benefit. Californians need to decide what the definition of "getting your act together" is. In the meantime, in this high takeout environment, having rebates benefits everyone more than not having rebates, CA included.

I agree. It's good to be skeptical. The paranoid survive. :D

[Stillriledup]

The only problem with that example is the whales isn't getting charged more than anyone else that bet that horse, they all get 2-1 odds. All the $2 bettors that bet that horse also get 2-1 now, in your example. It doesn't matter whose money it was that moved the odds.

Big bets move pools, for everyone in the pool. Odds are the odds, and everyone shares them.

It's a great argument for booking exchanges, tho.

Excellent points CH.

Your example is true, but the only caveat is that the small bettor can see the late money and choose to bet someone else. The big bettor just has to take the depressed odds no matter who he plays.

[chickenhead]

You are correct that in fixed odds betting the odds don't move for people who have already bet.

However, the odds do move for people who bet after them. Over time, bettors who get fixed odds or pari-mutuel odds probably tend to get some "mean" price on their bets.

Sometimes a fixed odds bettor will get in early and get a great price, and sometime the fixed odds bettor will have to accept a low price -- or not bet.

The fixed odds bettor can move to the other side of things if low odds are presented him, or bet at later higher odds, whether he's already booked other bets or not. Fixed odds only requires something offered other than what you think fair odds should be at that instant in time, or where you think the odds are headed, to present an opportunity.

Hard to ever make booking and parimutuel an apples to apples -- because they are so different. In parimutuel win betting the opinion you can express is very constrained, everything above X is value, everything below isn't for a each horse. In booking everything above X is value, X-Y is no value, everything below Y is value for each horse. And maybe most importantly odds changes themselves can be traded, profits locked in before the race is run.

I'm not smart enough to figure out how many more opportunities one has to express an opinion via booking rather than parimutuel for a given opinion and given odds of a given race, but it's multiples higher (due to the opportunities presented by odds changes).

You can express your opinion in more ways, lending itself to more betting opportunities, and you always know the value of each bet as it's made. If the means were in fact the same, but both the betting opportunities and the real-time transparency of one system (booking) is so much higher, it's not much of a contest.