What track has the best take out rates?

[BetCrazyGirl]

Thread title speaks for itself :), just wanting to know which tracks have the the lowest/best take out?

[jelly]

Go to HANA site.

[chickenhead]

Kentucky tracks have the lowest overall takeout structure...

[BetCrazyGirl]

That is a nice table HANA has, thanks :)

[Stillriledup]

Thread title speaks for itself :), just wanting to know which tracks have the the lowest/best take out?

Congratulations BCG, you're one of the .001 percent of the betting population who actually cares about takeout!

[therussmeister]

Kentucky tracks have the lowest overall takeout structure...
Only Keeneland and Churchill. Ellis and Turfway are higher.

[takeout]

The exacta and double are listed as different percentages. Is that right? Just asking. (love the chart)

[lamboguy]

that question does not really deal with effective takeout. it actually costs you less to play penn national after rebate, than NYRA after rebate.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

HANA chart: http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/hanatrackratingsbytrackname2010.html

Google Map Thoroughbred Racing: http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&gl=ca&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=105431952953964702152.00047fd83f45cb6beac52&ll=39.704265,-97.020491&spn=27.725092,52.035433&source=embed

Google Map Harness Racing: http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&gl=ca&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=105431952953964702152.00047ffb32192863639da&ll=40.668241,-87.74801&spn=28.883218,69.965419&source=embed

[The_Knight_Sky]

These charts are great provided that they're updated regularly.

I would like to suggest one key category: Field Size numbers.

It would be a useful tool to know what the average field size
was for dirt and turf races for the last two meets.

For some reason that is key information which is very sparse around the web.

[andymays]

Quite a few people have lower "effective" takeout rates even when they play the tracks with the highest takeout in the nation. It depends on how much you bet and which state you're in. For example California residents are at a disadvantage because of the retention cap sponsored by the TOC.

I'm sure someone can explain it better than I have.

[takeout]

On the HANA chart its got the Tampa take on exactas as .2050 and the daily double take as .1800. Just wondering if that’s right, because they’re both 2 horse bets. ??

[lamboguy]

Quite a few people have lower "effective" takeout rates even when they play the tracks with the highest takeout in the nation. It depends on how much you bet and which state you're in. For example California residents are at a disadvantage because of the retention cap sponsored by the TOC.

I'm sure someone can explain it better than I have.as far as california goes, unless you are playing in one of the chrb sanctioned rebate houses, you are getting a rotten rebate no matter where you live for califronia tracks.

when given the choice for me to play california at a 14% effective takeout rate, or penn national at an 8% effective race with large fields and not that worse a product to begin with, i go to penn national.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

On the HANA chart its got the Tampa take on exactas as .2050 and the daily double take as .1800. Just wondering if that’s right, because they’re both 2 horse bets. ??
I believe the HANA chart is correct.

[andymays]

as far as california goes, unless you are playing in one of the chrb sanctioned rebate houses, you are getting a rotten rebate no matter where you live for califronia tracks.

when given the choice for me to play california at a 14% effective takeout rate, or penn national at an 8% effective race with large fields and not that worse a product to begin with, i go to penn national.

Exactly. That a great example. :ThmbUp:

[W2G]

Thread title speaks for itself :), just wanting to know which tracks have the the lowest/best take out?

It all depends on which pools you tend to play. That HANA chart is mighty useful since you can sort by pool specific takeout. For example if you are a WPS bettor click on the heading "WPS Takeout" and discover that CA tracks lead the way.

I assume that "Takeout Score" is an attempt at an overall takeout metric. Can anyone share the underlying formula?

[BillW]

On the HANA chart its got the Tampa take on exactas as .2050 and the daily double take as .1800. Just wondering if that’s right, because they’re both 2 horse bets. ??

Yes, their serial bets are at 18% and the ex. @ 20.5. In general the chart is up to date (updates shown in red, with old value struck out) but not the ratings fieldsizes etc. (the takeout data is what's important anyway, right?! :) ). I am in the process of putting together the 2011 version of the chart.

[BillW]

It all depends on which pools you tend to play. That HANA chart is mighty useful since you can sort by pool specific takeout. For example if you are a WPS bettor click on the heading "WPS Takeout" and discover that CA tracks lead the way.

I assume that "Takeout Score" is an attempt at an overall takeout metric. Can anyone share the underlying formula?

Yes it's just a simple method of summarizing the takeout data. The method is published on our site ...

http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/trackratingmetrics.html

[W2G]

Yes it's just a simple method of summarizing the takeout data. The method is published on our site ...

http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/trackratingmetrics.html

Got it, thanks.

To clarify, in this composite takeout score the takeout grade of each track's particular pool contributes equally, i.e., there is no additional weighting scheme like share of overall handle or any other method?

[BillW]

Got it, thanks.

To clarify, in this composite takeout score the takeout grade of each track's particular pool contributes equally, i.e., there is no additional weighting scheme like share of overall handle or any other method?

No weighting from wager to wager. We were trying to keep it as simple as possible. Our primary goal was to get the raw data out as so many on-line resources are out of date. Many other factors affect each individual player such as success at a given track or with a given wager or maybe differing rebates or pool size. No way could we capture all of that for every individual bettor so we leave that to the individual to make their own evaluations based on accurate raw data. KISS rules :)

[takeout]

Yes, their serial bets are at 18% and the ex. @ 20.5. In general the chart is up to date (updates shown in red, with old value struck out) but not the ratings fieldsizes etc. (the takeout data is what's important anyway, right?! :) ). I am in the process of putting together the 2011 version of the chart.Thanks, I get it now. Looks like they’re one of only a few tracks that do it that way.

[BCOURTNEY]

I like the question. If you are trying to beat the track takeout on a per race basis, you have to calculate it for every single race. You would be amazed how much it varies. Yes, it varies from race to race. Most people do not account for breakage, how often it comes into play and the impact it has to the specific pools. If you account for breakage a rounding calculation used for offering and paying the public odds on a horse using dime breakage can cost you in upwards of 20-30% profit on a bet. If you think the public is hard to beat and a 2 decimal rounding issue moves your horse from 1.5 to 1.49 and all of a sudden your making 20-30% less money, that can be a very big deal. Wouldn't you like to know if you add just another 5 dollars to your bet you might lower the return on a 1000 dollar wager by 20%? Oh the subtle fun of the number crunch, or maybe adding 5 dollars to a bet on a different horse in the same pool might redistribute more money to you? Breakage allows for price manipulation, even though we have had the computer processing power to get rid of it for years, the only logical conclusion is that someone (cough) manipulates it, otherwise it would have been done away with years and years ago .. small guy gets smashed in the face.

[therussmeister]

If you are talking about odds of 1.5/1 dropping to 1.4/1 (3/2 to 7/5) that is a drop in profits of 6.67% not 20% - 30%. If you are talking about a $1 return of $1.50 dropping to $1.40 (1/2 to 2/5) that's 20%.

The obvious way to reduce the effect of breakage is to increase your average mutual price, either by not betting favorites or by betting exotics.

As far as pool manipulation goes, I import data from Bris' Supertote into a spreadsheet which calculates odds to the penny. If pool manipulation to affect breakage goes on, I think it would be easy to spot using this tool. I haven't noticed anything yet, but I haven't been looking for it. I will look for it the next few days.

[Robert Goren]

as far as california goes, unless you are playing in one of the chrb sanctioned rebate houses, you are getting a rotten rebate no matter where you live for califronia tracks.

when given the choice for me to play california at a 14% effective takeout rate, or penn national at an 8% effective race with large fields and not that worse a product to begin with, i go to penn national.Spoken like a true horseman.:rolleyes:

[BCOURTNEY]

The ~20% loss I was referring to could be a show bet. When we should get 2.78 returned and get 2.60 instead. Ow.


<snip>
If you are talking about odds of 1.5/1 dropping to 1.4/1 (3/2 to 7/5) that is a drop in profits of 6.67% not 20% - 30%.
<snip>

[Robert Goren]

Whenever I hear field size makes up for the obscene takeout rates, I want to puke. 4 horses with 1% chance of winning taking 1.2% of the money doesn't make up the extra 2-5% of takeout they are grabbing. Besides that, it should not be an either/or choice. The handicappers deserve both. It seems now days it is ok to take 18+% out the win pool if you run 7 horses with 5 stiffs instead of 5 with 3 stiffs. I say that is bull crap. One more thing, with all the stuff that has gone on at Penn National, I would not feel comfortable wagering there if the takeout was zero. I don't know why anyone would either.

[Phantombridgejumpe]

increase would make up for a takeout decrease at most tracks? I don't know the answer, and I suppose that is the debate.

With the statement someone made before, and I agree, that a small % of the people betting care I just don't know if it would really generate even the same amount of money for the tracks. My counter thought is that even if it is a small number of the betters that care it may be a larger % of the wagering....i.e. 2% of the people wagering care about takeout, but those 2% make up 20% of the handle.

Lets take Track X which has 20% takeout and a handle of $1.0M on a given tuesday so they generate $200,000 in takeout money.

If they went to 15% takeout and handle jumped 20% (which seems high) to $1.2M they would generate $180,000 in takeout money and be out $20K.

But, if they could do $1.4M with the lower takeout they would generate $210,000 and be $10,000 to the good. That sort of jump seems unlikely, but I'm curious to hear what others think.

Sorry if this is basic stuff, I've been playing for years and years and years yet takeout was never a major issue to me - it probably should have been.

[Robert Fischer]

do you think the handle increase would make up for a takeout decrease at most tracks? I don't know the answer, and I suppose that is the debate.

somebody should be able to crunch some numbers and make this into a math model.

i looked into this briefly and I have a meeting, but I will post.

hopefully this is not disinformation

the 2 terms following are very important in the equation:
marginal revenue (the revenue for serving one more horseplayer)
and marginal cost (cost of serving one more horseplayer)

these terms are from financial principals(wowww::)

ok i need coffee...

those terms measure the costs and revenue AFTER the base costs are accounted for. The cost of establishing and running the blueprint of the business will (in dream world and luckily in this case) remain the same, so the "MARGINAL"(additional) stuff is what we are crunching for OPTIMALTAKE

anyway they refer to a THEORY that

marginal revenue-marginal cost = should equal ZERO in a perfectly competitive market...
but let's not kid ourselves. "Skim" a little to the Tracks , these markets are not perfectly competitive

now i will cut n paste....

fischer=/quote]=
but some simple ballpark calculations can give an idea.

If the average revenue of taking 1 more wager(
marginal revenue) transaction is $1.26 (AVGwager size $7 ( very rough guesstimate *18% take)
and the average cost of taking that one extra wagermarginal cost is 50cents (this is an over-estimate (to boost the wager-providers), the cost is probably more like 20cents at MOST probably much less)

the racetracks are making a marginal profit of 76cents per unit

10% Take puts the marginal profit at a more marketable 20cents per unit.

[Robert Fischer]

- con't


so you can mess around with the idea of marginals, but it's going to put you by definition toward a so called competitive market

in reality we have "PRICE FIXING" so that major tracks tend to offer similar (higher than competitive market) pricing. This is a huge obstacle.

If tracks were to lower takeout the the actual estimates would consider things like how much better a price was being offered, how many wagering dollars are actually available(changes wildly) - this would provide both incentive and a limit to lowering takeout, and then CHURN has to be considered.
----------------

NOw if we assume that the big tracks continue to FIX pricing...
or even lets say California goes to 10%WPS:lol:(sorry..) and becomes the racing leader immediately. - Now NYRA is going to 10points , Kentucky ten%...
wowwww an actual competitive market.
but then the wagering dollars aren't necessarily going up anywhere if all the choices are once again level.

so this is the scenario we want, but then we have to realize that dollars have to go up

These increases have to come from new players and churn. The new players have to come from a powerhouse mass media broadcast effort and the fact that GAMERS(yes the under60 crowd still gambles and plays games for entertainment. No, not horseracing at the moment...) now have a game worth playing:eek:. And CHURN.

too much work
lets raise takeout

[Phantombridgejumpe]

California goes to 10%WPS(sorry..) and becomes the racing leader immediately.


I think business would go up for a track with 10% takeout, but I don't know how much...I think 25% is probably a high estimate and not enough to make the math work if you are going from same 18% to 10%.

It would be a fun experiment to see happen in real life.

[Charli125]

California goes to 10%WPS(sorry..) and becomes the racing leader immediately.


I think business would go up for a track with 10% takeout, but I don't know how much...I think 25% is probably a high estimate and not enough to make the math work if you are going from same 18% to 10%.

It would be a fun experiment to see happen in real life.

This is where the term "Optimal Takeout" comes in. At optimal takeout, the most money will be lost by the players as a whole. That means that handle will go up, and will create more takeout revenue than either a lower or higher takeout percentage. We don't know what the exact optimal takeout is, and it likely varies by bet, but we do know it's lower than it is now!

Here's a good article from Jeff addressing it: http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/articletakeoutmodel.html

The other thing to think about is that with lower takeout, it's easier to convince new people to join the game since it will compare more favorably with other gambling options.