What's best for the game? Rebates or lower takeout for everyone?

[andymays]

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/horseracing/tab-on-alert-as-punter-stacks-odds-in-his-favour-20110517-1erfa.html

Excerpt:

A total of about $200,000 went on Black Caviar for the place seconds before the field jumped. The punter was not concerned that the mare was only paying $1 for the place, meaning he would only receive his original $200,000 in return.

So why have the bet? Well what about the old-fashioned kickback, a commission on the bet? These payments are made to the big spenders of the betting world to keep their business. Wagering operators offer the deal and it is believed TOTE Tasmania is willing to refund up to 7 per cent to its biggest punters. So in the case of the Black Caviar bet, the punter would receive $14,000 on top of the $200,000. Obviously there is still a risk, as the runner has to place for the bet to be successful. But there is still some comfort as the $14,000 return would still be guaranteed - win, lose or draw.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/horseracing/tab-on-alert-as-punter-stacks-odds-in-his-favour-20110517-1erfa.html#ixzz1MiDWQxdE

[Robert Goren]

It depends a lot on how you look at it. One way(and the correct way as far I am concerned) is that he bet only 186, 000 but will get a return like he bet 200,000 if the bet wins.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

100%, the answer it is lower takeout for everyone.
The longer players last, the more likely they are to think the game is beatable, the more likely they are to look at entries daily, make bets daily, and then get anyone in their inner circle exposed to their hobby. This would create more dummy money, and more winners, which the game is sorely lacking today.

The worst case scenario is takeout rates where they are today, or higher, and no rebates. Racing would kill off the only ones who believe the game is beatable. One of the main reasons why states that make it hard or impossible for rebates are dying faster than others.

[andymays]

100%, the answer it is lower takeout for everyone.
The longer players last, the more likely they are to think the game is beatable, the more likely they are to look at entries daily, make bets daily, and then get anyone in their inner circle exposed to their hobby. This would create more dummy money, and more winners, which the game is sorely lacking today.

The worst case scenario is takeout rates where they are today, or higher, and no rebates. Racing would kill off the only ones who believe the game is beatable. One of the main reasons why states that make it hard or impossible for rebates are dying faster than others.

How do we get there?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

How do we get there?
First and foremost, State laws in places that make it hard for rebates need to be amended, but more importantly, Horsemen groups need to be shut out having a say in what tracks charge for their betting product.

Horsemen groups have every right negotiating their cut of what is made through gambling, but should have no right in determining the price charged.

[andymays]

First and foremost, State laws in places that make it hard for rebates need to be amended, but more importantly, Horsemen groups need to be shut out having a say in what tracks charge for their betting product.

Horsemen groups have every right negotiating their cut of what is made through gambling, but should have no right in determining the price charged.

That's right!

Should Horsemen get a cut of concessions and concert money at the tracks?

I think that is reasonable.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

That's right!

Should Horsemen get a cut of concessions and concert money at the tracks?

I think that is reasonable.
I would tend to agree with that, considering that a track is potentially taking away betting money from patrons while they put these things on, charge admission, and make money off concessions.

But horsemen groups should just lay back and understand that the track wants to make as much money as possible, so leave it to them to price everything to get the best possible return. The horsemen group's job is to negotiate the best possible cut they can get.

[rwwupl]

First and foremost, State laws in places that make it hard for rebates need to be amended, but more importantly, Horsemen groups need to be shut out having a say in what tracks charge for their betting product.

Horsemen groups have every right negotiating their cut of what is made through gambling, but should have no right in determining the price charged.

AGREE !

The Racing Association should be able to adjust the price of the product per market conditions anytime, with the approval of the state regulator board. Racing must now compete for the gambling public.

The association has the responsibility for profit and loss,answers to stockholders and the horsemen have a choice to race anywhere they want. The horsemen have a main interest for purse size and little or no responsibility for funding them.

Giving the horsemen representatives the power over price of the product is a big mistake by Congress via the IHA.

That mistake needs correction.

The Pari-Mutuel system Translated..("Between us")is where the facilitator takes from the top and the remaining pool money is contested by players participating.

It has been the traditional method of the science of handicapping that determines the winners over time. It is a contest between the players.

Rebates skew the value of handicapping,and makes the playing field unlevel,and give the rebated players a huge advantage.

Most all large and thoughtful rebated players , if they had a choice ,would give up their rebate for a low cost take out for all.

One low cost take out for all would encourage larger pool size,new players seeing the value of handicapping,and willing to compete and return the game to fair competition between the players,ensuring a growth cycle, the way it was intended to be.

The Pari-Mutuel system has been corrupted by rebates. There are no standard rules who gets rebates , how much, and who decides.

There are many who get rebates, do not want to give them up in the interest of what is best for the game...but if everyone had one low cost of the bet, the Pari-Mutuel system and handicapping would be more viable again and new players would be welcome.

Racing would have a chance to attract customers again.

The big question, as mentioned before , How do we get there from here?

Yes, like most things, the longest journey begins with the first step. Lets allow all jurisdictions the freedom of matching rebate policy (California..are you listening?) and when everybody gets rebates, just do away with them and have one low cost of bet for all.

Any better ideas?

Roger Way

[Tom]

When a track is not just racing, why should they give the horsemen a cut?
They are entertainment centers, and what do the horsemen bring to that table? They get a cut of slots money because that was the strategy to get slots in the door, but in the long run, why should they get any of that money? No racing = less land needed = less taxes = profits from selling it off.


Take away racing from most tracks and how many would care? Or notice?
The tracks that are smart enough to lower take out and do other things to grow their business should be the one that survive.

[Stillriledup]

AGREE !

The Racing Association should be able to adjust the price of the product per market conditions anytime, with the approval of the state regulator board. Racing must now compete for the gambling public.
Etc


I think things are good the way they are. Your point about 'no standard rules' to who gets rebates and who does not is misleading. The 'standard' rule is that you need to wager a lot. If you do, you can find yourself a deal out there somewhere. One 'standard' rule is that if you bet a million a year, someone will give you a 'break'. I mean, its not in stone, but its out there, you just need to do a little legwork to find it.

As far as kickbacks making the field unlevel, here's one thing you're not considering. If Joe 2 dollar bettor sticks his 2 non rebated dollars on a 3-1 shot, he gets 8 dollars back if he wins. If joe 2,000 dollar bettor sticks HIS 2k on a different 3-1 shot, he gets back 7 dollars (for example) and not 8. Why should the 'better customer' get 7 dollars while the other guy gets 8? This is where the kickback comes in for Joe 2k bettor....he gets SOME of his money back for the odds depression.

This is America, its not Hong Kong where a 2k bet won't move the odds at all. In America, 2k crushes a win price at most tracks, the guy who's betting that 2k needs some kind of 'buffer' in order to keep betting 2k. If the 2k a race guy consistently is getting 7 dollar win prices on 3-1 shots, he's going to be out of the game very quickly.

[jelly]

What's best for the game? Rebates or lower takeout for everyone?



Which would attract more gamblers?I'd go with lower takeout.

[Spiderman]

Lower takeout and NO tax on winnings. And, eliminate breakage.

[Stillriledup]

Lower takeout and NO tax on winnings. And, eliminate breakage.

You're hired!! as racing commissioner!!!

Any words Mr Comish? :ThmbUp:

[Spiderman]

You're hired!! as racing commissioner!!!

Any words Mr Comish? :ThmbUp:
Yes, indeed. All racetracks will be remodeled to replicate the finest shopping malls. Good coffee and great food courts. Free admission. Three winners per day for all who subscribe to my handicapping service.

[Kelso]

Should Horsemen get a cut of concessions and concert money at the tracks?Only if they own a piece of the track, or if they pay up front for a bond to cover their share of any losses.

Horsemen should have financial claims and decision-making influence on only what they own or manage ... their horses. Track revenues should belong to only the people who risk their money building and operating tracks.

[Kelso]

I would tend to agree with that, considering that a track is potentially taking away betting money from patrons while they put these things on, charge admission, and make money off concessions.
Then how 'bout the owner of the gas station just outside the track who gets a lot of business, and takes a lot of spendable cash, from track patrons? Does HE owe the horsemen a piece of HIS action, too?

[thaskalos]

Then how 'bout the gas station just outside the track who gets a lot of business from track patrons. Does HE owe the horsemen a piece of HIS action, too?
Perhaps...now that you mentioned it...

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Then how 'bout the owner of the gas station just outside the track who gets a lot of business, and takes a lot of spendable cash, from track patrons? Does HE owe the horsemen a piece of HIS action, too?
Slots money, concessions, etc. makes for higher purse money. Tracks need to offer purses to attract horses. Regardless of where that money comes from.
All I am saying is that today racetracks need to use lots of sources to fund races.
If horsemen do not get a cut of slots, concessions, etc. then they will need to get a bigger share from betting.

Lets not forget that tracks are generally licensed to run horse races (as it creates jobs which is generally good for the local economy at the very least), so anything done on the property should be at least partially directed to fund races. Anti-gambling groups get defeated because of the benefits tracks provide in creating many jobs.

All that being stated, horsemen should have zero say (outside of making suggestions) in the prices for food, admission, and bets (takeout). That is up to the track as I would imagine, they are driven to maximize revenues.

[andymays]

Slots money, concessions, etc. makes for higher purse money. Tracks need to offer purses to attract horses. Regardless of where that money comes from.
All I am saying is that today racetracks need to use lots of sources to fund races.
If horsemen do not get a cut of slots, concessions, etc. then they will need to get a bigger share from betting.

Lets not forget that tracks are generally licensed to run horse races (as it creates jobs which is generally good for the local economy at the very least), so anything done on the property should be at least partially directed to fund races. Anti-gambling groups get defeated because of the benefits tracks provide in creating many jobs.

All that being stated, horsemen should have zero say (outside of making suggestions) in the prices for food, admission, and bets (takeout). That is up to the track as I would imagine, they are driven to maximize revenues.

It has long been a sore spot for horsemen that they don't get a piece of the action when it comes to special events during or after the races. The Del Mar concerts are very successful and bring in a lot of money. I don't see any reason that 10% of the profit can't go to purses. I believe that even though Del Mar was down in handle last year they did send out a retroactive purse increase to winners after the meeting. Having said that maybe that's the tradeoff for getting groups like the TOC to back off the veto crap on everything.

[Robert Goren]

Takeout going to horsemen is sore point with me. Increases in the takeout over the years has gone almost exclusive to the horsemen. Decreases in the government's share has too. There are places where horsemen's share of the handle is more than entire takeout was when I first betting the horses in the 60s.

[rwwupl]

Has anyone considered that there is a relationship between purse size and the price of horses and the cost to maintain horses at the racetrack?

Everytime the purses are increased by legislation in particular, everyone involved thinks that they deserve a raise and the cost of hay, oats, day rates, vet fees, and prices for horses are increased accordingly.

We have seen this movie before in California.

California is among the highest jurisdictions in the U.S.A. to maintain a racehorse.

The rich owners have the fastest horses,and their owners do not care about the cost of hay or maintenance or day rates, but the stables of moderate priced horses do care a lot. They can not beat the fast horses of the rich owners, and can not justify the high maintenance costs , so they move on to more friendly jurisdictions where they can compete with lower cost and do better ,even though purses may be less. Vet costs in California are very, very high, ask Maggie Moss, she tried out here and went back home.

Horse shortage in California? Some would suggest the 5 horse fields offered early on the card that customers hate, are designed for horsemen to keep the moderate price horse stables at home. They pay a check down to 5th place. I always wonder if the field is 6 horses, how the horsemen determine which one will scratch?

Races should be carded to attract customers,not for horsemen alone.

Jeremy Plonk(paraphrase) recently wrote,only in California with a 2,400 horses on hand is a horse shortage, when other tracks that have 1,500 horses the entries are full. Horsemen in California only run their horses once every three blue moons.

Purses are funded ,for the most part by customer take out, and when legislation directs more money for purses, take out is raised, that is a raid on the business model and makes the business model financially unbalanced and and the customers are returned less and they can not last long enough to learn the game.

When the people who put on the show fail in the traditional way by putting on an attractive race card to grow the fan base and handle, they are asking the customers, via legislation, to make up for their failure,and that aggravates the problem by chasing away customers to better values in gaming.

The bottom line is that racing was in it glory when takeout was in the 10 to 12 % range, and now it is in deep trouble at 20% plus range. Do you think that racetracks and horsemen should examine the costs and why it takes so much more today to operate on a percent basis to than it did yesterday?

Horses still eat the same as years ago.

Customers do not care how much a horse costs. Customers do not care how much a purse is. Customers want a race with a full field of class matched horses that will race for the purse posted,and they will bet on their choice of who will win,considering value.

The business model has been abused by those in charge and those in charge must repair it or they will be replaced.

The customers are not responsible for these problems. Customers go where they are invited and stay where they are treated well.

The racing managers must learn to compete.

Roger Way

[Stillriledup]

Rog

The biggest problem is that racing is still operating under 1970's "We're the only game in town, take it or leave it" mantra.

They just refuse to accept that they're NOT the only game in town and people have many more gambling options as well as many more non-gambling entertainment options.

Its sort of like a drug addict not seeking help until he or she hits absolute rock bottom. Is racing at 'rock bottom' yet? I'm not sure, but either way, they're closer to rock bottom than maybe they realize.

[Sea Biscuit]

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/horseracing/tab-on-alert-as-punter-stacks-odds-in-his-favour-20110517-1erfa.html

Excerpt:

A total of about $200,000 went on Black Caviar for the place seconds before the field jumped. The punter was not concerned that the mare was only paying $1 for the place, meaning he would only receive his original $200,000 in return.

So why have the bet? Well what about the old-fashioned kickback, a commission on the bet? These payments are made to the big spenders of the betting world to keep their business. Wagering operators offer the deal and it is believed TOTE Tasmania is willing to refund up to 7 per cent to its biggest punters. So in the case of the Black Caviar bet, the punter would receive $14,000 on top of the $200,000. Obviously there is still a risk, as the runner has to place for the bet to be successful. But there is still some comfort as the $14,000 return would still be guaranteed - win, lose or draw.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/horseracing/tab-on-alert-as-punter-stacks-odds-in-his-favour-20110517-1erfa.html#ixzz1MiDWQxdE

Rebates is not the answer. Maybe lowering takeouts is.

Rebate shops are no friends of horse racing. They do more harm than good. Please read Ray Paulick's report on rebate shops and how they are harming the horse racing industry.

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/platt-and-rebate-shops-not-friends-of-racing/

[andymays]

Rebates is not the answer. Maybe lowering takeouts is.

Rebate shops are no friends of horse racing. They do more harm than good. Please read Ray Paulick's report on rebate shops and how they are harming the horse racing industry.

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/platt-and-rebate-shops-not-friends-of-racing/
Ray Paulick? Please!

He's no friend of the Horseplayer. ;)

[Sea Biscuit]

Ray Paulick? Please!

He's no friend of the Horseplayer. ;)

I thought the topic was about rebates and not Ray Paulick.:lol:

[Charli125]

Rebates is not the answer. Maybe lowering takeouts is.

Rebate shops are no friends of horse racing. They do more harm than good. Please read Ray Paulick's report on rebate shops and how they are harming the horse racing industry.

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/platt-and-rebate-shops-not-friends-of-racing/

Whenever I see this argument I always have the same question. Would you rather the ADW keep the money or that it be returned to the player? There is no 3rd option that says, return the money to the track.

It's obvious to everyone that lower takeout is the answer, but rebates are a good stop-gap measure until takeout gets to the optimal level. With the way things are setup right now, we can either prop up the ADW margins, or rebate the players. In a perfect world we'd get to a point where all players were getting rebates. That way there could be no argument that takeout shouldn't be lowered.

[Stillriledup]

Rebates is not the answer. Maybe lowering takeouts is.

Rebate shops are no friends of horse racing. They do more harm than good. Please read Ray Paulick's report on rebate shops and how they are harming the horse racing industry.

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/platt-and-rebate-shops-not-friends-of-racing/

There's a lot of things that are harming the horse racing industry.....giving customers 'sales' on bets is not one of them.

If Macy's lets a person purchase a shirt at 33% off, does that hurt the fashion industry? If Whole Foods lets a person purchase a bag of apples at 33% of does that hurt local farmers? If Target lets a person purchase a music CD at 33% off, does that hurt the music industry? If Ralphs Supermarket has a 10% off sale on Flank Steak, does that hurt the cattle industry?

[Sea Biscuit]

There's a lot of things that are harming the horse racing industry.....giving customers 'sales' on bets is not one of them.

If Macy's lets a person purchase a shirt at 33% off, does that hurt the fashion industry? If Whole Foods lets a person purchase a bag of apples at 33% of does that hurt local farmers? If Target lets a person purchase a music CD at 33% off, does that hurt the music industry? If Ralphs Supermarket has a 10% off sale on Flank Steak, does that hurt the cattle industry?

If Macys is selling a shirt 33% off and that 33% comes from the pocket of the fashion industry, I say it will definitely hurt them.

Just where do you think that 10 to 12% rebates that the 10x10 rebates shops with no overheads is coming from? Is it from the pockets of the rebaters or from some place else. If you guessed from the pockets of the tracks you would be right. Instead of getting 20% takeout they are getting something like 4/5 % from the rebaters. Can tracks survive on that much. The answer is no. This also hurts the horsemen as well as they have to make do with smaller purses.

Its an evil we have to do away with. Spoiled gamblers have to learn to make money at a track the old fashioned way by placing winning bets.

Just take a look at what one rebate place in Vegas is offering to its customers.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20434256/RENO%20NORTH%207.11.xls

Its on an Excell file and you have to download it from the above link.

[thaskalos]

If Macys is selling a shirt 33% off and that 33% comes from the pocket of the fashion industry, I say it will definitely hurt them.

Just where do you think that 10 to 12% rebates that the 10x10 rebates shops with no overheads is coming from? Is it from the pockets of the rebaters or from some place else. If you guessed from the pockets of the tracks you would be right. Instead of getting 20% takeout they are getting something like 4/5 % from the rebaters. Can tracks survive on that much. The answer is no. This also hurts the horsemen as well as they have to make do with smaller purses.

Its an evil we have to do away with. Spoiled gamblers have to learn to make money at a track the old fashioned way by placing winning bets.

Just take a look at what one rebate place in Vegas is offering to its customers.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20434256/RENO%20NORTH%207.11.xls

Its on an Excell file and you have to download it from the above link.
If these rebates are so detrimental to the financial welfare of the racetracks...why are the racetracks going along with them?

Has it ever occurred to you that these rebated players would NEVER return to the game if their rebates were discontinued?

Isn't it better to receive "4/5%" from them...than nothing at all?

[Sea Biscuit]

If these rebates are so detrimental to the financial welfare of the racetracks...why are the racetracks going along with them?

Has it ever occurred to you that these rebated players would NEVER return to the game if their rebates were discontinued?

Isn't it better to receive "4/5%" from them...than nothing at all?

I am quoting the first two paragraphs from Ray Pulick's report which should answer your first question:

"If horse racing industry leaders had not made the critical mistake 20 years ago of underpricing their simulcast signal, rebate operations would not exist.

But under price they did, and racetracks found themselves losing on-track customers to off-shore and U.S.-based companies that established very profitable businesses because they had virtually no infrastructure (bricks and mortar) to support."

Thats what needs to be done. Tracks should increase their simulcast signal fee to an extent so that these rebate shops can no longer afford to give out such outrageous rebates to gamblers. The current mindset of gamblers to break even on their bets and collect on the rebates has to change.

The answer to your last question is that takeouts is the main source of revenue aside from the hamburgers and the beers they sell and maybe a little bit for parking your car. If that main revenue source is reduced from 20% to 4/5 % it will hurt. It drove the mecca of harness racing The Medowlands out of business even though there handles were all not that bad at approx 2.5 million a day. Gural who has taken over the Meadowlands has vowed to fight it out with the rebaters and increase the signal fee.

I am sure other tracks will follow suit.

[Charli125]

I am quoting the first two paragraphs from Ray Pulick's report which should answer your first question:

Be careful taking what Ray says as the absolute truth.


Thats what needs to be done. Tracks should increase their simulcast signal fee to an extent so that these rebate shops can no longer afford to give out such outrageous rebates to gamblers. The current mindset of gamblers to break even on their bets and collect on the rebates has to change.

Or, lower their takeout and keep the signal fee the same. If they did that handle would explode, rebates would pretty much go away, and the tracks would make more money. Raising their signal fee simply takes money out of the players hands and gives it to the track...that's not going to help the game. If takeout were lower, most break-even players would become profitable.


The answer to your last question is that takeouts is the main source of revenue aside from the hamburgers and the beers they sell and maybe a little bit for parking your car. If that main revenue source is reduced from 20% to 4/5 % it will hurt. It drove the mecca of harness racing The Medowlands out of business even though there handles were all not that bad at approx 2.5 million a day. Gural who has taken over the Meadowlands has vowed to fight it out with the rebaters and increase the signal fee.

Jeff Gural also owns Tioga Downs which has the lowest takeout of any track in North America. He has said some things against rebates, but I haven't seem him proposing jacking up the signal fees to match the high takeouts. What I've seen him do at Tioga is lower the takeout so that it gets closer to the signal fee. That is what we all want to happen.

[Stillriledup]

If Macys is selling a shirt 33% off and that 33% comes from the pocket of the fashion industry, I say it will definitely hurt them.

Just where do you think that 10 to 12% rebates that the 10x10 rebates shops with no overheads is coming from? Is it from the pockets of the rebaters or from some place else. If you guessed from the pockets of the tracks you would be right. Instead of getting 20% takeout they are getting something like 4/5 % from the rebaters. Can tracks survive on that much. The answer is no. This also hurts the horsemen as well as they have to make do with smaller purses.

Its an evil we have to do away with. Spoiled gamblers have to learn to make money at a track the old fashioned way by placing winning bets.

Just take a look at what one rebate place in Vegas is offering to its customers.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20434256/RENO%20NORTH%207.11.xls

Its on an Excell file and you have to download it from the above link.

The rebate money is not coming from the pockets of the tracks, an extremely high 90% of all rebate money would dry up if the rebate dried up. These rebaters would not be betting BILLIONS per year with no rebate. Those billions would go away, they wouldnt go into the pools at the live racetrack. So, in other words, anything a track makes from a rebate is found money. Take away the rebates of all the rebaters and very few, if any, would start betting at the live racetrack with 0 rebate.

Now, if the takeouts were lowered to 10 pct, thats a different story, but at the current rates, no way.

Call me crazy, but i believe....and this is just a wild hunch, that anyone who is NOT getting a rebate would change their tune very quickly if their phone rang and someone offered them a nice fat rebate on their bets.
They wouldnt be singing the 'rebates are bad for racing" tune, i'd be willing to betcha.

You use the term 'old fashioned way' and that's a problem. We're in NEW fashion, times have changed, this isnt 1970 anymore, old fashioned is gone goodbye. You arent going to put the genie back in the bottle, ya know?

[Sea Biscuit]

The rebate money is not coming from the pockets of the tracks, an extremely high 90% of all rebate money would dry up if the rebate dried up. These rebaters would not be betting BILLIONS per year with no rebate. Those billions would go away, they wouldnt go into the pools at the live racetrack. So, in other words, anything a track makes from a rebate is found money. Take away the rebates of all the rebaters and very few, if any, would start betting at the live racetrack with 0 rebate.

Now, if the takeouts were lowered to 10 pct, thats a different story, but at the current rates, no way.

Call me crazy, but i believe....and this is just a wild hunch, that anyone who is NOT getting a rebate would change their tune very quickly if their phone rang and someone offered them a nice fat rebate on their bets.
They wouldnt be singing the 'rebates are bad for racing" tune, i'd be willing to betcha.

You use the term 'old fashioned way' and that's a problem. We're in NEW fashion, times have changed, this isnt 1970 anymore, old fashioned is gone goodbye. You arent going to put the genie back in the bottle, ya know?

Let me put it this way. The rebate handles are just like a mirage. You see the water hole but you can't drink from it.

For some years the tracks had a healthy on-track handles and they were surviving along with the rebaters. They soon found they were on wrong end of the stick and started to lose their on-track bettors to the rebate shops. Why do you thinks most tracks grandstands are empty now.

If Gural had not come up with a $100 million The Medowlands and Monmouth would have been history by now.

Wake up and smell the coffee. The time to act is now. Its now or never. If there are no racetrack left the gamblers will most probably twiddling their thumbs and wondering where to place their next bet.

It would be a bitter pill, but the gamblers have to swallow it.

[thaskalos]

Let me put it this way. The rebate handles are just like a mirage. You see the water hole but you can't drink from it.

For some years the tracks had a healthy on-track handles and they were surviving along with the rebaters. They soon found they were on wrong end of the stick and started to lose their on-track bettors to the rebate shops. Why do you thinks most tracks grandstands are empty now.

If Gural had not come up with a $100 million The Medowlands and Monmouth would have been history by now.

Wake up and smell the coffee. The time to act is now. Its now or never. If there are no racetrack left the gamblers will most probably twiddling their thumbs and wondering where to place their next bet.

It would be a bitter pill, but the gamblers have to swallow it.
You have a strong candidate for post of the year here...:ThmbUp:

[Rutgers]

Whenever I see this argument I always have the same question. Would you rather the ADW keep the money or that it be returned to the player? There is no 3rd option that says, return the money to the track.

It's obvious to everyone that lower takeout is the answer, but rebates are a good stop-gap measure until takeout gets to the optimal level. With the way things are setup right now, we can either prop up the ADW margins, or rebate the players. In a perfect world we'd get to a point where all players were getting rebates. That way there could be no argument that takeout shouldn't be lowered.

I agree the best thing to happen would be for takeout to be lowered. But the uneven rebate system that is in place is not a good stop-gap measure. It favors the few at the expense of the many.

[Stillriledup]

Let me put it this way. The rebate handles are just like a mirage. You see the water hole but you can't drink from it.

For some years the tracks had a healthy on-track handles and they were surviving along with the rebaters. They soon found they were on wrong end of the stick and started to lose their on-track bettors to the rebate shops. Why do you thinks most tracks grandstands are empty now.

If Gural had not come up with a $100 million The Medowlands and Monmouth would have been history by now.

Wake up and smell the coffee. The time to act is now. Its now or never. If there are no racetrack left the gamblers will most probably twiddling their thumbs and wondering where to place their next bet.

It would be a bitter pill, but the gamblers have to swallow it.

M and Mth are on the ropes because of neighboring tracks getting slots.

The ontrack bettors left because they couldnt win without a rebate and they had the ability to get one (as does everyone). If rebates didnt exist, those people would have left anyway. Its a dying game, but its not dying because a few horsebettors are getting rebates.

[Sea Biscuit]

M and Mth are on the ropes because of neighboring tracks getting slots.

The ontrack bettors left because they couldnt win without a rebate and they had the ability to get one (as does everyone). If rebates didnt exist, those people would have left anyway. Its a dying game, but its not dying because a few horsebettors are getting rebates.

Let me take an excerpt from one of your posts and I quote:

"These rebaters would not be betting BILLIONS per year with no rebate. Those billions would go away, they wouldnt go into the pools at the live racetrack."

"but its not dying because a few horsebettors are getting rebates."

A bit of a contradiction here don't you think? On the one hand you say a few bettors and then you say they are betting billions a year.

We don't really know to what extent the damage has been done by the rebate shops as there are no published figures that I have come across.

Let me quote Gary Piontkowski, President of Plainridge racecourse, a track with small handles and big ideas, said it best and I quote:

""We are tired of 8x10 offices equipped with just a phone line and computer pillaging horsemen and racetrack revenues, "It is time someone stood up to these fly by night operators who are making millions on the backs of horsemen's and racetrack operations."


Piontkowski has the right ideas of offering 1% signal fees to race tracks with live racing and 8% to independent outlets with no live racing. He is also very high on reducing the takeouts at his track. You can read the full report here


http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=88009

[Sea Biscuit]

You have a strong candidate for post of the year here...:ThmbUp:

Thank you Mr Thaskalos.

Appreciate the kind words.

[Robert Goren]

Let me take an excerpt from one of your posts and I quote:

"These rebaters would not be betting BILLIONS per year with no rebate. Those billions would go away, they wouldnt go into the pools at the live racetrack."

"but its not dying because a few horsebettors are getting rebates."

A bit of a contradiction here don't you think? On the one hand you say a few bettors and then you say they are betting billions a year.

We don't really know to what extent the damage has been done by the rebate shops as there are no published figures that I have come across.

Let me quote Gary Piontkowski, President of Plainridge racecourse, a track with small handles and big ideas, said it best and I quote:

""We are tired of 8x10 offices equipped with just a phone line and computer pillaging horsemen and racetrack revenues, "It is time someone stood up to these fly by night operators who are making millions on the backs of horsemen's and racetrack operations."


Piontkowski has the right ideas of offering 1% signal fees to race tracks with live racing and 8% to independent outlets with no live racing. He is also very high on reducing the takeouts at his track. You can read the full report here


http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=88009 This kind of thinking is exactly why horse racing is so much trouble.

[Charli125]

Sea Biscuit,

This is a good discussion because what you think is what a lot of people that don't get rebates think. What you think is also what a lot of uninformed or heavily lobbied tracks think. Allow me to respond below though. And on a side note, thank you for an open discussion about this. I don't agree with you, but it's a good discussion to have in the open so people can see both sides.


We don't really know to what extent the damage has been done by the rebate shops as there are no published figures that I have come across.

Ray's article is correct in one thing, and that is that when the model was setup it was flawed. I agree with you on that point. To blame rebaters for how the model was setup doesn't make sense though. The tracks are keeping the signal fee that they charge no matter what the bet taker does with the rest. Again, wouldn't you rather the money be returned to players than to Twinspires bottom line? Why is Twinspires good and a rebater is bad?


Let me quote Gary Piontkowski, President of Plainridge racecourse, a track with small handles and big ideas, said it best and I quote:

""We are tired of 8x10 offices equipped with just a phone line and computer pillaging horsemen and racetrack revenues, "It is time someone stood up to these fly by night operators who are making millions on the backs of horsemen's and racetrack operations."

Piontkowski has the right ideas of offering 1% signal fees to race tracks with live racing and 8% to independent outlets with no live racing. He is also very high on reducing the takeouts at his track. You can read the full report here


There are a few interesting things in that article.

Twinspires, which purchased youbet and did away with any rebates they offered, which offers the lowest rewards program of any ADW out there, is going to be getting the signal for 1% because they're owned by CDI. Twinspires is the biggest ADW out there as well, so this has a major impact on Plainridge profit.

The result is that the people charging full price for the bet(including Twinspires) pay 1% and pocket the 14% as profit. The rebaters will pay the 8%, rebate say 2%, and profit 5%. Mr. Piontkowski has just raised the profit margins that Twinspires makes, and destroyed margins at his track. This does nothing positive for his track or horsemen.

ADW's and rebate shops are the only growth segment in racing right now. Instead of fighting that, we need to embrace it and change our model. If Mr. Piontkowski would have lowered his takeout to 15% and left the signal fee the same, he would have experienced handle growth. As it is, he very well could have just put his track out of business.

I especially disagree with the line about pillaging "horsemen and racetrack revenues". How does this plan give more money to the horsemen and racetrack? By attacking the rebate shops we're giving more and more profit to the big ADW's, and taking more money out of the players hands. I'm sure the CDI folks are sitting in their boardroom laughing their asses off when they see things like this because it's just more profit for them. The argument is framed as Rebate Shops steal money from the track so the solution is, raise price on Rebate Shops. The result is no additional money to the track(probably less actually), and more money into the pockets of the Big ADW's.

You could argue that signal fees should be higher because ADW margins are too high, but the elephant in the room is Twinspires(and likely TVG as well). The biggest ADW's, with the biggest handle, offering the smallest amount back to the players, are being treated like tracks while they take a huge amount of money out of circulation (to quote Mr. Piotkowski), "on the backs of horsemen's and racetrack operations".

[thaskalos]

Thank you Mr Thaskalos.

Appreciate the kind words.
You and Mr. Paulick could not be more wrong about this issue my friend...and the article which you chose to make your case with was a classless attack by Mr. Paulick against a man who works tirelessly - and without any monetary reward - strictly for the interests of the horseplayer.

Painting the racing industry's leaders as innocent victims who just happend to make..."the critical mistake 20 years ago of underpricing their simulcast signal"...is far from the truth...as is the assertion that rebates are connected to the shrinking mutuel handles nationwide.

The racetracks have been raping their customers for the last fifty years now...shamelessly escalating their takeouts consistently - even during the times when their business thrived - because they realized that they were the only legal gambling game in town...and now that they no longer are...they are looking for people to blame for their predicament.

Was it the rebate shop operators who have raised the takeouts from 10% to 26%+ over the last 50 years?

Was it the rebate shop operators who came up with the brilliant idea of levying an additional 5-6% tax on their OTB customers...so they can bankrupt them in record time?

The racing industry's entire simulcast business model was laughable...and they deserve no sympathy from the horseplayer, because the horseplayer never received any sympathy from THEM!

And equally laughable was YOUR comment that the horseplayer should swallow another bitter pill...because, "without the racetracks we would be home twiddling our thumbs".

They need us a lot more than we need them!

[Sea Biscuit]

You and Mr. Paulick could not be more wrong about this issue my friend...and the article which you chose to make your case with was a classless attack by Mr. Paulick against a man who works tirelessly - and without any monetary reward - strictly for the interests of the horseplayer.

Painting the racing industry's leaders as innocent victims who just happend to make..."the critical mistake 20 years ago of underpricing their simulcast signal"...is far from the truth...as is the assertion that rebates are connected to the shrinking mutuel handles nationwide.

The racetracks have been raping their customers for the last fifty years now...shamelessly escalating their takeouts consistently - even during the times when their business thrived - because they realized that they were the only legal gambling game in town...and now that they no longer are...they are looking for people to blame for their predicament.

Was it the rebate shop operators who have raised the takeouts from 10% to 26%+ over the last 50 years?

Was it the rebate shop operators who came up with the brilliant idea of levying an additional 5-6% tax on their OTB customers...so they can bankrupt them in record time?

The racing industry's entire simulcast business model was laughable...and they deserve no sympathy from the horseplayer, because the horseplayer never received any sympathy from THEM!

And equally laughable was YOUR comment that the horseplayer should swallow another bitter pill...because, "without the racetracks we would be home twiddling our thumbs".

They need us a lot more than we need them!

First a friendly handshake and then you try to hit me with a claw hammer. At least it felt that way. I should have recognized the sarcasm in your post but that handshake icon fooled me completely. I have always wondered why people like you don’t say whats up their mind the first time instead of saying something stupid like you did. I guess you find all kinds of people at internet discussion forum such as this. Let me answer to some of the points raised by you in your post in a short manner so as not to waste your time and mine.

Quote:

“You and Mr. Paulick could not be more wrong about this issue my friend...and the article which you chose to make your case with was a classless attack by Mr. Paulick against a man who works tirelessly - and without any monetary reward - strictly for the interests of the horseplayer.” End quote.

I don’t know Mr Paulick personally and I don’t know what he has done or not done for the horse racing industry. But I did like his report on rebates which he explained in a pretty concise and simple terms how its hurting the industry.

About Mr Jeff Platt I am sure he is working tirelessly to recruit as many horseplayers as possible to the rebate shops by sending the following email by the hundreds and thousands. Please do read his disclaimer at the very end in small pint. Use a magnifying glass if you have to but do read it.

“Rebates (Thoroughbred ADW) - Helping players find the best possible rates... a free service from JCapper.com
Rebates can affect your bottom line in a very profound way. Aside from discipline, the ability to execute a game plan, a willingness to roll up one's sleeves and go to work... every single professional player that I have met in the past 10 years shares one other thing in common...

All of them... every single one... earns rebates.

What are rebates? And more importantly... how do you get them?

I'm a full time player and handicapping software author. I do not operate an ADW - nor do I have a financial stake (ownership interest) in an ADW.

I do, however, have a number of very solid and reputable industry contacts who are extremely knowledgeable when it comes to navigating the maze that track operators have created in an effort to keep you from finding rebates.

As a service to JCapper customers... prospective JCapper customers too...

If you live in an eligible state, meet min handle requirements... starting at as little as 3k per month... and want the best possible rates given your handle and state of residence...

Call or shoot me an email... I would be more than happy to put you in touch with industry contacts who will:





Evaluate Your Situation.

Absolutely help you find the very best possible "home" and rate schedule available on the market today given your situation.
It goes without saying that the context in which I am using the word "home" here means a 100% legal licensed North American parimutuel ADW.

Jeff Platt

jeff @ jcapper . com

Full disclosure: If you take me up on my offer, once you are signed up and start earning rebates, I receive compensation in the form of a referral fee.”

You Mr Tahskalos say that he is not doing anything for monetary gain. Paulick called him a pimp of the rebate shops but I won’t go that far. Lets just say he is their lackey. Who can forget HANA’s boycott of the California tracks. That boycott hurt Santa Anita pretty bad. I happened to check out of curiosity what that Las Vegas rebate shop called North Reno was offering as rebate for SA. I found out it was only .5% ( Thats half of 1 %) for WPS. I am just left wondering whether that boycott was about lowering takeouts or was it about increasing rebates. Guess who is the president of HANA. If you guessed Jeff Platt you would probably be right.

Quote:

” Was it the rebate shop operators who have raised the takeouts from 10% to 26%+ over the last 50 years? “ End quote.

Fifty years you could most probably buy a three bedroom house for $25000 and a gallon of gas for 25 cents. Wake up man where have you been. Even though take outs have increased with the times but I believe it should be in the range of 15 to 20% right now.

Quote;

“They need us a lot more than we need them!”

That’s the $64000 question. To answer this you have to find out which came first

The chicken or the egg.

[DeanT]

Fifty years you could most probably buy a three bedroom house for $25000 and a gallon of gas for 25 cents. Wake up man where have you been. Even though take outs have increased with the times but I believe it should be in the range of 15 to 20% right now.




SB,


Just a note: The price of a good goes up with inflation, but takeout rates are a margin, and they don't.

In 1950, takeout was around 14%, inflation has gone up 833%, but takeout rates are not 116%.

[rwwupl]

SB,


Just a note: The price of a good goes up with inflation, but takeout rates are a margin, and they don't.

In 1950, takeout was around 14%, inflation has gone up 833%, but takeout rates are not 116%.


Inflation has no effect on the share percentage of a dollar. If the dollar is worth 10 times more or less, the share remains statistically and practically the same value.

rw

[Horseplayersbet.com]

In 1946, $1.8 billion was bet on horses.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mOErAAAAIBAJ&sjid=kGUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3740,791756&dq=1950+horse+racing+handle&hl=en

One dollar back then is worth $11.87 today. That means that if horse racing was keeping up with inflation, we should have seen around 21 billion wagered last year instead of 11 billion.

If you take into account population, that number would be over $45 billion.

It was around 1946 that takeouts started moving up from 10-12% to 15-17%.

I should also add that back in the 40's and 50's state taxes collectively were much higher than today, which means horsemen and tracks split around 5-7% of what was wagered. Today when you add in alternative gambling funding horsemen and tracks split around 16-18%.
http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=7

[Sea Biscuit]

SB,


Just a note: The price of a good goes up with inflation, but takeout rates are a margin, and they don't.

In 1950, takeout was around 14%, inflation has gone up 833%, but takeout rates are not 116%.

Point well taken Dean.

Thanks for pointing it out.

[Ernie Dahlman]

[QUOTE=Sea Biscuit}

Just take a look at what one rebate place in Vegas is offering to its customers.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20434256/RENO%20NORTH%207.11.xls

Its on an Excell file and you have to download it from the above link.[/QUOTE]

Sea Biscuit,

There are no legal rebate places in Las Vegas (or in Nevada, where Reno is located). If you want a rebate go to NYRA.com and you will find "The Highest Rebates in the Industry".

[thaskalos]

Rebates is not the answer. Maybe lowering takeouts is.

Rebate shops are no friends of horse racing. They do more harm than good. Please read Ray Paulick's report on rebate shops and how they are harming the horse racing industry.

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/platt-and-rebate-shops-not-friends-of-racing/
You say here that "rebate shops are no friends of horse racing".

We can no longer concern ourselves solely with what is good for "horse racing"...we have to also consider what is good for the HORSEPLAYER too.

The horseplayer has been ignored for way too long in this game...having been relegated to the role of "spectator"...instead of being regarded as the ACTIVE PARTICIPANT that he is.

The racing industry will NEVER agree to substantially reduce the existing takeouts - their thinking is too shortsighted to realize that this is a profitable long-term solution to the predicament our sport finds itself in. The most we can expect is the lowering of the takeouts in the experimental wagers, like the pick-5.

From the realistic horseplayer's point of view, it's either REBATES...or NOTHING!

[toussaud]

sea biscuit is putting in work lol

and his point I believe is dead on.

the rebates people IMHO are no different than the horseman who demand 140 day meets at tracks doing less than 100k a race in handle with bad fields 5 days a week. We know what you WANT, hell I want. But just like we ask horseman to look after what it right, it would not be right for us not to do the same and in the horseracing ecosystem, the tracks need to get paid for putting on the show, i hate to say it like that but it's the truth. They don't need to gorge us with 20% takeout but at the same time, we have to be realistic, if we want racing to be healthy long term.


You can't with one hand, get pissy when tracks turn to racinos and slots for revenue, and with the other hand, think it's perfectly okay to get the biggest rebates you possibly can. You have to take a stand somewhere in the sand on that issue. I don't care for rebates, but i also don't care for racinos either, I believe tracks should be self sufficient, and aprt of that is actually letting tracks make a little, with little being the operative word, money.

i had no problem with rebates per say. I think rebates are a great way to get people to the track, in other words, if the TRACK is offering the rebate as some incentive to keep wagering on their product, then if that's what you want to do do it. But an ADW offering a rebate...


a good analogy would be say, I made plastic cups. I can make 100 plastic cups for 4 dollars. I give my cups to wal mart with a suggest retail price of 4.99 per 100 plastic cups. But, wal mart, allows the customers to purchase the plastic cups for $3.29 instead of $4.99., and then keeps an additional 15 cents for themselves. so instead of me getting back 4 dollars for what i put into what i developed, i am getting probably barely 3 dollars back, and being told to deal with it basically.

In that analogy, horse players, are the customers who just want the cheapest product they can find. And in the real world the customers can do that because for every company that can't make that work, there are others who can outsource overseas and get cheaper labor, cheaper products, work more efficiently and make that work. But horse racing doesn't have that option. We have to make sure that the tracks are paid to put on the show, that they can have decent purses, have a decent facility, a safe racetrack, etc al.

[chickenhead]

its important to remember, when looking at things from the tracks point of view, that they aren't victimized by (legal) rebate shops in the least -- they willingly sign contracts with them, they aren't forced to.

And the reason they sign contracts with them is because they know they end up with higher net revenue than they would if they didn't contract with them -- i.e. the rebate shops make them money.

The problem comes in because while they know delivering lower takeout rates to "price sensitive" bettors makes them more money -- they don't believe they would make more revenue by extending that reduced takeout to all bettors. So we end up with a kind of shady secret low takeout world, and the public facing high takeout world, by design.

They could change it at any time -- they could either eliminate rebates completely (onshore) by decree, or by raising signal fees high enough to all contracted ADWs. They don't do this generally because they know they would make less money, which is at the end of the day what we're talking about. The tracks don't want less money, hence we have rebates.

They could also eliminate rebates by reducing the takeout with lesser reductions to the signal fee, so that the ADW spread narrows for all ADWs. The issue the tracks have with this is they are afraid it will cost them money to extend lower prices to "non-price sensitive bettors", on track bettors mainly. They also don't do this because the tracks have shown so far as simulcast they enjoy the high margins they get on on track simulcast, and are not happy with a lower margin on imported signals. In this sense the other tracks, not the ADWs, are the power structure that has the strength and leverage to keep takeout rates high at other tracks.

There is definitely a pickle of a situation this industry is in so far as pricing -- but rebating ADWs aren't the cause of it, they are a side effect of it.

[toussaud]

its important to remember, when looking at things from the tracks point of view, that they aren't victimized by (legal) rebate shops in the least -- they willingly sign contracts with them, they aren't forced to.

And the reason they sign contracts with them is because they know they end up with higher net revenue than they would if they didn't contract with them -- i.e. the rebate shops make them money.

The problem comes in because while they know delivering lower takeout rates to "price sensitive" bettors makes them more money -- they don't believe they would make more revenue by extending that reduced takeout to all bettors. So we end up with a kind of shady secret low takeout world, and the public facing high takeout world, by design.

They could change it at any time -- they could either eliminate rebates completely (onshore) by decree, or by raising signal fees high enough to all contracted ADWs. They don't do this generally because they know they would make less money, which is at the end of the day what we're talking about. The tracks don't want less money, hence we have rebates.

They could also eliminate rebates by reducing the takeout with lesser reductions to the signal fee, so that the ADW spread narrows for all ADWs. The issue the tracks have with this is they are afraid it will cost them money to extend lower prices to "non-price sensitive bettors", on track bettors mainly. They also don't do this because the tracks have shown so far as simulcast they enjoy the high margins they get on on track simulcast, and are not happy with a lower margin on imported signals. In this sense the other tracks, not the ADWs, are the power structure that has the strength and leverage to keep takeout rates high at other tracks.

There is definitely a pickle of a situation this industry is in so far as pricing -- but rebating ADWs aren't the cause of it, they are a side effect of it.


this could never happen.

in fact, this is what Arlington park tried not that long ago. and got nailed to the cross for doing it.

it sounds well in good in theory until other tracks are killing you in revenue because all the ADW's aren't offering your track feed.

ADW's especially the big ones, and tracks like nyrarewards, have a very very strong bargaining chip, and that is the patrons/handle. some handle is better than no handle.

right now there is no OTB in NY, so you are going to tell the NYRA take my higher fees or I am going to take my feed and go home? Unless they are hollywood park or maybe gulfstrream you think they honestly care lol? Heck they are doing the tracks a favor by carrying the feeds.

the only way this can be off set is to get people at the track to play.

[chickenhead]

this could never happen.

in fact, this is what Arlington park tried not that long ago. and got nailed to the cross for doing it.

it sounds well in good in theory until other tracks are killing you in revenue because all the ADW's aren't offering your track feed.

ADW's especially the big ones, and tracks like nyrarewards, have a very very strong bargaining chip, and that is the patrons/handle. some handle is better than no handle.

Are you are referring to the 5% signal fee cap Illinois tried to impose on out of state signals being imported via ADW? (that Arlington didn't support IIRC)

That is actually the opposite of what I am talking about. Illinois was not trying to change anything on their own signals, they were trying to reduce the signal fees of all other tracks importing their signals via ADW, so the tracks in Illinois could take some more of that money. They lost importation of signals via ADW because the other tracks didn't go along with a reduced cut.

[chickenhead]

But your point is valid, of course distribution via ADW matters. But signal breadth also matters for ADWs, their entire model is predicated with them having signals people want to bet. And that is why the pay fairly high signal fees already. People miss that I guess when they say "tracks can't squeeze ADWs or they'll lose distribution" -- the tracks already have squeezed ADWs -- they are charging as high of signal fees as they can. If they have a signal customers actually want, they are getting paid a high rate. It has already happened. Tracks that have signals no one bets -- they don't get paid much. But thats because no one wants it, not because (independant) ADWs have any great power in the grand scheme of things.

What tracks don't do is squeeze each other in simulcast. Their signal fees are all fixed, the only way to squeeze each other is in the form of reducing takeout rates. There is a reason all the low takeout stuff happens in smaller pools, or new pools. The other tracks that take your signal in simulcast would go apeshit if (a California sized circuit) for instance charged them 3% and cut their WPS and Exacta from 20% to 10%. It would be a massive cut to many tracks margins. The ADWs would not blink if (a California sized circuit) cut their signal fees to 3%, and dropped WPS and Exacta to 10%. The ADWs would be perfectly happy. Other tracks, not so much.

So how is it the ADWs (rebate or not) keeping takeout rates high again? It's a mystery.

[baconswitchfarm]

a good analogy would be say, I made plastic cups. I can make 100 plastic cups for 4 dollars. I give my cups to wal mart with a suggest retail price of 4.99 per 100 plastic cups. But, wal mart, allows the customers to purchase the plastic cups for $3.29 instead of $4.99., and then keeps an additional 15 cents for themselves. so instead of me getting back 4 dollars for what i put into what i developed, i am getting probably barely 3 dollars back, and being told to deal with it basically.


This is an awful analogy. wal mart doesn't pay companies whatever they want and tell the company to take a loss. Neither do adw or racetracks . Tracks sell their product at a set price and adw's buy it. What they do with their profit is their business. They should price the product better to the middle man. Here is a more accurate analogy.

I manufacture my own brand of bubble gum and have a store to sell it. For thirty years I gouge my customers with high prices and keep all the profits. Now that the gum business has fallen off I decide to wholesale to other stores at a low price. Now they decide to price low and make profits with high volume and low prices. I now find myself angry because my best customers are cost concious and will now longer allow themselves to be robbed at my store. My wholesale business now does ok but my store has to close. I did this to myself and now seek people to blame for my long term mismanagement. Woe is me.

[Jens]

I'm afraid I don't understand why the poll questions are worded the way they are without context? The 2004 Cummings Associates Report (and many other economic studies cited in that report) make it crystal clear that both lower takeout for all as well as rebates only available to some is what is best for the game. The problem (as I see it) is that is the present business model is not only broken because of excessive takeout but because rebates are available based on location of residence rather than value to the business. There is no question (in my mind at least) that the people in charge (tracks, owners, breeders, their political henchmen, etc.) have made one massive business blunder after another in getting the industry to where it is now (formerly a major sport with the highest attendance of any other sport in the country to a mere afterthought in the sports world today). The real question is how to right a sinking ship. I know I don't have the answer. I do believe, however, that lower takeout for all AND rebates to valuable price sensitive customers is the direction the brain trust in charge of this industry should be looking at. Credibility is yet another issue.

Just my opinion

[thaskalos]

Here is a more accurate analogy.

I manufacture my own brand of bubble gum and have a store to sell it. For thirty years I gouge my customers with high prices and keep all the profits. Now that the gum business has fallen off I decide to wholesale to other stores at a low price. Now they decide to price low and make profits with high volume and low prices. I now find myself angry because my best customers are cost concious and will now longer allow themselves to be robbed at my store. My wholesale business now does ok but my store has to close. I did this to myself and now seek people to blame for my long term mismanagement. Woe is me.
The voice of reason! :ThmbUp:

Excellent analogy! They painted themselves into a corner and now don't know which way to go.

All may not be lost though...

I have it on good authority that a new bet is in the works...and it will soon be offered nationwide at a 9% takeout rate.

It is called the octafecta...and it requires predicting the top eight finishers in the correct order.

Sadly, it cannot be offered in California, due to field size...

[toussaud]

a good analogy would be say, I made plastic cups. I can make 100 plastic cups for 4 dollars. I give my cups to wal mart with a suggest retail price of 4.99 per 100 plastic cups. But, wal mart, allows the customers to purchase the plastic cups for $3.29 instead of $4.99., and then keeps an additional 15 cents for themselves. so instead of me getting back 4 dollars for what i put into what i developed, i am getting probably barely 3 dollars back, and being told to deal with it basically.


This is an awful analogy. wal mart doesn't pay companies whatever they want and tell the company to take a loss. Neither do adw or racetracks . Tracks sell their product at a set price and adw's buy it. What they do with their profit is their business. They should price the product better to the middle man. Here is a more accurate analogy.

I manufacture my own brand of bubble gum and have a store to sell it. For thirty years I gouge my customers with high prices and keep all the profits. Now that the gum business has fallen off I decide to wholesale to other stores at a low price. Now they decide to price low and make profits with high volume and low prices. I now find myself angry because my best customers are cost concious and will now longer allow themselves to be robbed at my store. My wholesale business now does ok but my store has to close. I did this to myself and now seek people to blame for my long term mismanagement. Woe is me.

while I admit that is a better analogy, it's still not 100% accurate because in horse racing's case, if the store closes, there is no wholesale product to sale.

The wholesaler has to work with the store in horse racings case.

[andymays]

Is it really parimutuel wagering when we are really competing against one another and one player is afforded a big edge while others get no rebates?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parimutuel_betting

Unlike many forms of casino gambling, in parimutuel betting the gambler bets against other gamblers, not the house. The science of determining the outcome of a race is called handicapping.

[rwwupl]

Is it really parimutuel wagering when we are really competing against one another and one player is afforded a big edge while others get no rebates?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parimutuel_betting

Unlike many forms of casino gambling, in parimutuel betting the gambler bets against other gamblers, not the house. The science of determining the outcome of a race is called handicapping.

No, pari-mutuel betting has been corrupted and is no longer one mans skill at handicapping against another mans skill.

That was the premise that drew crowds of the past, and the best handicapper was rewarded...today, the rebated player is rewarded automatically and the handicapper that is not rebated has the additional burden to overcome the "head start" of the rebated player.

How do we get new players to join a biased "contest" like this?

Lets return to a level playing field for all, one lower cost of the bet and return the contest to one mans skill against another, and enjoy excitement that the game once had again.

Roger Way

[Stillriledup]

No, pari-mutuel betting has been corrupted and is no longer one mans skill at handicapping against another mans skill.

That was the premise that drew crowds of the past, and the best handicapper was rewarded...today, the rebated player is rewarded automatically and the handicapper that is not rebated has the additional burden to overcome the "head start" of the rebated player.

How do we get new players to join a biased "contest" like this?

Lets return to a level playing field for all, one lower cost of the bet and return the contest to one mans skill against another, and enjoy excitement that the game once had again.

Roger Way

One man's skill vs another man's skill is why they have the NTRA, everyone is on a level playing field. Horsebetting isnt one man vs another and the reason is because everyone has different sized bankrolls.

People with larger bankrolls have a decided advantage....just like anything else in life.

Your 'level playing field' is really unleveling the playing field in favor of the 2 dollar bettor and actually hurting the large player. If a guy bets 2k to win on a horse with no rebate, he's getting 2-1 on his 5-2 shot with no 'relief'. The 2 dollar bettor is getting the full 5-2...that means he doesnt need 'relief'.

Also, the person betting 2k per race (as an example) is making the horse track more money than the 2 dollar bettor is making them. The 2k per race guy is a much better customer than the 2 dollar bettor.....yet you're proposing that both these people be treated equally.

If i went into a bakery and cupcakes were 1 dollar each and i wanted 1,000 of them, i'd expect the owner to NOT charge me 1 dollar per. If i went into a bakery and wanted ONE cupcake, i'd expect to pay 1 dollar and wouldnt expect to get any kind of discount.

This is the way life works, i'm not really sure why you think its fair in racing to punish the best customers and not give them 'advantages' that other big customers get in other situations in life.

[lamboguy]

i am in the rebate business and must admit that the rebates have only kept the game alive by the skin of its teeth. rebates have reduced the takeout to lower than it was 40 years ago. i have to look at it from the perspective of the business that are handing out the rebates. it cost them just as much to service a bigger player than it does a smaller player. without the rebates the bigger player won't play. if the big player doesn't play the smaller guy has no chance at his money. on one hand it is unfair for the smaller guy, but on the other hand it gives the smaller guy a shot to make a score with short bankroll.

from what i see with all forms of gambling these days including casino's, lottery's, and even bingo, the bigger players all get some type of perks from the gambling provider. in some states if you bet a lottery ticket for the whole year they give you some type of rebate. if you play keno with the state they give you back something.

what it comes down to is that the smaller player really would much rather see the bigger guy get the rebate and they get their shots at his money, than not have the guy playing at all.

[thaskalos]

Your 'level playing field' is really unleveling the playing field in favor of the 2 dollar bettor and actually hurting the large player. If a guy bets 2k to win on a horse with no rebate, he's getting 2-1 on his 5-2 shot with no 'relief'. The 2 dollar bettor is getting the full 5-2...that means he doesnt need 'relief'.

Also, the person betting 2k per race (as an example) is making the horse track more money than the 2 dollar bettor is making them. The 2k per race guy is a much better customer than the 2 dollar bettor.....yet you're proposing that both these people be treated equally.

If i went into a bakery and cupcakes were 1 dollar each and i wanted 1,000 of them, i'd expect the owner to NOT charge me 1 dollar per. If i went into a bakery and wanted ONE cupcake, i'd expect to pay 1 dollar and wouldnt expect to get any kind of discount.

This is the way life works, i'm not really sure why you think its fair in racing to punish the best customers and not give them 'advantages' that other big customers get in other situations in life.
SRU...this is EXACTLY the sort of post that has made me such a big fan of yours. BRAVO! :ThmbUp:

Those who decry the "unfainess" of giving rebates to the game's best customers need to realize that life ITSELF is "unfair"...and that the big-volume customer ALWAYS gets a discount rate -- no matter what sort of business he patronizes.

Since an across-the-board reduction for ALL bettors is a total impossibility...rebates are the only way a player can get a fair shake in this game -- and I would hate to see them terminated.

[Robert Goren]

Nobody starts out as a big player. It is guy who racing needs desperately, the new customer who grows into a large player. As it now, thing are so stack against a newcomer that they very often turn to other forms of gambling before they get good enough to bet larger amounts. The really bad part is that everybody I know starting out betting horses at a live meet. A first timer there really gets taken to the cleaners there before they even make a bet. I understand why big bettors get rebates, but some how they have to make it less expensive for the new handicapper. Even the big bettors know that can't make any money if they are just betting against each other no matter how big the rebate. As one guy once put it to me, "all the old suckers are dying off and we ain't getting any new ones"

[duncan04]

Nobody starts out as a big player. It is guy who racing needs desperately, the new customer who grows into a large player. As it now, thing are so stack against a newcomer that they very often turn to other forms of gambling before they get good enough to bet larger amounts. The really bad part is that everybody I know starting out betting horses at a live meet. A first timer there really gets taken to the cleaners there before they even make a bet. I understand why big bettors get rebates, but some how they have to make it less expensive for the new handicapper. Even the big bettors know that can't make any money if they are just betting against each other no matter how big the rebate. As one guy once put it to me, "all the old suckers are dying off and we ain't getting any new ones"


Bingo!! If we don't get new players interested then soon there will be no more big players

[Robert Goren]

They have to leave a little water behind, so the next guy can prime the pump.

[Stillriledup]

SRU...this is EXACTLY the sort of post that has made me such a big fan of yours. BRAVO! :ThmbUp:

Those who decry the "unfainess" of giving rebates to the game's best customers need to realize that life ITSELF is "unfair"...and that the big-volume customer ALWAYS gets a discount rate -- no matter what sort of business he patronizes.

Since an across-the-board reduction for ALL bettors is a total impossibility...rebates are the only way a player can get a fair shake in this game -- and I would hate to see them terminated.

Thanks! Its good to have fans!

:jump:

[rastajenk]

If a guy bets 2k to win on a horse with no rebate, he's getting 2-1 on his 5-2 shot with no 'relief'. The 2 dollar bettor is getting the full 5-2...that means he doesnt need 'relief'.Maybe I need some more java, but this needs explained to me. Why is he only getting 2-1 on a 5-2 play?

[rwwupl]

Horseplayers are not much different from the self interest "domain" that controls racing. Those who get the rebates advantage think that is swell and try to justify with twisted logic their position.

This is not about how big your wallet is or how many apples you can buy. It is about simple competition of one person against another.

Simple fairness.

Pari mutuel betting is different than other gambling, you are not playing against the house, you are playing against each other.

People who say that "rebates " are a growth factor for racing are ignoring the facts,things are not going so well. Rebates corrupt the pari-mutuel system. Rebates and carryovers are nothing more than a patch for failure.

There are many reasons for the wheels to come off of racing and we are talking about some of them.

Our racing leaders think more about themselves (and retention of their power) than the big picture and what is best for the game. Some horseplayers swallow that line too over rebates.

How many millions have been spent for the last 20 years to attract young people to become horseplayers? What are the results, where are they? Why has the effort failed?

People have a natural love for horse racing, and that will not diminish, and I think most will agree with that, but some will say bring them in, but do not take away my rebate advantage. I guess they want to throw newcomers under the bus, and newcomers reject the unfairness.

Do not confuse rebates with skill.

The current score of the poll on top is 85 to 8 in favor of lower take out for all.

One way to return to sanity over this issue is by steps, allow rebates for everyone to your hearts content, then when everyone has them ,do away with them and lower the takeout for ALL.

Don't worry, what is right will always eventually triumph.

rw

[Robert Goren]

How many millions have been spent for the last 20 years to attract young people to become horseplayers? What are the results, where are they? Why has the effort failed? Mis spent is more the word. Vary few people played poker 15 years ago. Then it got on main stream TV and all hell broke loose. Why isn't horse racing on TV more? The answer is people who sponsor it. Poker sites sponsored Poker. Horse Racing needs to sponsor Horse racing. Burger King is not going to.
But that is only half way there, You have got to treat them right once you get them in the door. Horse racing does a terrible job of that and we all know that.

[thaskalos]

Maybe I need some more java, but this needs explained to me. Why is he only getting 2-1 on a 5-2 play?
Because he knocks down his own price, due to the size of his bet.

Actually, he will usually get much LESS than 2-1...depending on the track.

[Rutgers]

Your 'level playing field' is really unleveling the playing field in favor of the 2 dollar bettor and actually hurting the large player. If a guy bets 2k to win on a horse with no rebate, he's getting 2-1 on his 5-2 shot with no 'relief'. The 2 dollar bettor is getting the full 5-2...that means he doesnt need 'relief'.

Also, the person betting 2k per race (as an example) is making the horse track more money than the 2 dollar bettor is making them. The 2k per race guy is a much better customer than the 2 dollar bettor.....yet you're proposing that both these people be treated equally.

If i went into a bakery and cupcakes were 1 dollar each and i wanted 1,000 of them, i'd expect the owner to NOT charge me 1 dollar per. If i went into a bakery and wanted ONE cupcake, i'd expect to pay 1 dollar and wouldnt expect to get any kind of discount.

This is the way life works, i'm not really sure why you think its fair in racing to punish the best customers and not give them 'advantages' that other big customers get in other situations in life.

A $2,000 wager may lower the odds on a horse, but it lowers the odds for everybody, even the $2.00 bettor. So if the $2,000 bettor and the $2 bettor both wager on a horse at 5/2 who off odds then drop to 2/1 the payoff is $6.00 for each $2 wager for both players.


You can not compare a bakery transaction with pari-mutuel wagering. The bakery transaction is between the individual and the bakery. Pari-mutuel wagering is a transaction between the individuals wagering into the pool. The track is basically a neutral facilitator of the transaction, collecting the wagers and distributing the payoffs. If the track (or the bet taker) ceases to be neutral and starts favoring some players over others, pari-mutuel wagering ceases to be a “fair game“.

If you must use an analogy, a more accurate one would be if you and I went to a pool hall and each put up $10, held by a 3rd person while we played. After the game, the winner was paid by the person holding the money. And assume we played a 10 games, and since you’re a little better then me you won 6 games. You wagered $100 ($10x10) and won $120 ($20x6) for a profit of $20, while I lost $20.

But let’s say I am regular at the pool hall and the 3rd person decides that after each game I should get back $5 of $10 I put up. You still win 6 games, but I get $50 in rebates ($5x10) plus $60($15x4) for a total of $110 for a profit of $10, while you now lose $10 even though you are a better player and won more games. Is it fair? Are you going to continue to play under those conditions?


what it comes down to is that the smaller player really would much rather see the bigger guy get the rebate and they get their shots at his money, than not have the guy playing at all.



Rebates do not lower the takeout. Takeout is the proportion of the pool that is removed before calculating the payouts. Rebates are the proportion of the takeout that is returned some of the players . The effect of the takeout is lessen on those that receive them, but at the same time it increases the effect of the takeout on those who don’t or who get smaller rebates. With a proper field and pool size some wagers offer a reasonable opportunity to a knowledgeable player to overcome the takeout, a small player has no realistic chance overcome the rebate advantage a knowledgeable large bettor enjoys. But as somebody in the rebate business you already know that.


It really does not matter who is to blame for the current rebating system that is in place. But people need to recognize that with the current unequal rebate system lowering the takeout rates is going to make the game any better if a few large volume bettors (who tend to be very good horseplayers) enjoy a rebate advantage. And since the vast majority of the horseplayers are adversely affected by the current rebating system, the system is not very good for the long-term health of the sport.

[Rutgers]

But people need to recognize that with the current unequal rebate system lowering the takeout rates is going to make the game any better if a few large volume bettors (who tend to be very good horseplayers) enjoy a rebate advantage.

oops
It should be:

But people need to recognize that with the current unequal rebate system, lowering the takeout rates is not going to make the game any better, if a few large volume bettors (who tend to be very good horseplayers) enjoy a rebate advantage.

[thaskalos]

A $2,000 wager may lower the odds on a horse, but it lowers the odds for everybody, even the $2.00 bettor. So if the $2,000 bettor and the $2 bettor both wager on a horse at 5/2 who off odds then drop to 2/1 the payoff is $6.00 for each $2 wager for both players.


You can not compare a bakery transaction with pari-mutuel wagering. The bakery transaction is between the individual and the bakery. Pari-mutuel wagering is a transaction between the individuals wagering into the pool. The track is basically a neutral facilitator of the transaction, collecting the wagers and distributing the payoffs. If the track (or the bet taker) ceases to be neutral and starts favoring some players over others, pari-mutuel wagering ceases to be a “fair game“.

If you must use an analogy, a more accurate one would be if you and I went to a pool hall and each put up $10, held by a 3rd person while we played. After the game, the winner was paid by the person holding the money. And assume we played a 10 games, and since you’re a little better then me you won 6 games. You wagered $100 ($10x10) and won $120 ($20x6) for a profit of $20, while I lost $20.

But let’s say I am regular at the pool hall and the 3rd person decides that after each game I should get back $5 of $10 I put up. You still win 6 games, but I get $50 in rebates ($5x10) plus $60($15x4) for a total of $110 for a profit of $10, while you now lose $10 even though you are a better player and won more games. Is it fair? Are you going to continue to play under those conditions?

Now just a minute here...

You say that you cannot compare parimutuel wagering to a "bakery transaction"...and you cited as proof your "opinion" that parimutuel wagering is just a transaction between the "customers"...and not between the customers and the establishment.

What you forgot to mention is that the onerous takeout imposed on THIS game makes the racetrack not just a "neutral facilitator"...but also a formidable adversary.

The player who wagers $10,000 during a day's play has contributed about $2000 to the racetrack...while the player who has a $200 daily handle has only been charged $40 for the privilege of playing this game.

Where is the "fairness" in that?

[Charli125]

If you must use an analogy, a more accurate one would be if you and I went to a pool hall and each put up $10, held by a 3rd person while we played. After the game, the winner was paid by the person holding the money. And assume we played a 10 games, and since you’re a little better then me you won 6 games. You wagered $100 ($10x10) and won $120 ($20x6) for a profit of $20, while I lost $20.

But let’s say I am regular at the pool hall and the 3rd person decides that after each game I should get back $5 of $10 I put up. You still win 6 games, but I get $50 in rebates ($5x10) plus $60($15x4) for a total of $110 for a profit of $10, while you now lose $10 even though you are a better player and won more games. Is it fair? Are you going to continue to play under those conditions?


That's not quite true. You would have to change your analogy to say that you give the 3rd person who is holding the money 4$ for each game they facilitate. That would mean player 1 won 6 games or $96, player 2 won 4 games or $64, and the holder of the money received $40 for their troubles. The rebate comes out of the $40.


Rebates do not lower the takeout. Takeout is the proportion of the pool that is removed before calculating the payouts. Rebates are the proportion of the takeout that is returned some of the players . The effect of the takeout is lessen on those that receive them, but at the same time it increases the effect of the takeout on those who don’t or who get smaller rebates.

This is an argument I get in all of the time. It doesn't increase the effective takeout at all on those who don't get rebates. Players without rebates are receiving the effect of the maximum takeout. Players with rebates receive lower effective takeout. One player getting a rebate doesn't impact another player's takeout.

The way you're explaining it is that there is say 20% takeout, and so if one player is playing at 15% takeout then others are charged more to get back to 20%.

And to clarify, I voted that lower takeout is better and I definitely believe that. I just don't think that rebates are bad.

[Stillriledup]

A $2,000 wager may lower the odds on a horse, but it lowers the odds for everybody, even the $2.00 bettor. So if the $2,000 bettor and the $2 bettor both wager on a horse at 5/2 who off odds then drop to 2/1 the payoff is $6.00 for each $2 wager for both players.


You can not compare a bakery transaction with pari-mutuel wagering. The bakery transaction is between the individual and the bakery. Pari-mutuel wagering is a transaction between the individuals wagering into the pool. The track is basically a neutral facilitator of the transaction, collecting the wagers and distributing the payoffs. If the track (or the bet taker) ceases to be neutral and starts favoring some players over others, pari-mutuel wagering ceases to be a “fair game“.

If you must use an analogy, a more accurate one would be if you and I went to a pool hall and each put up $10, held by a 3rd person while we played. After the game, the winner was paid by the person holding the money. And assume we played a 10 games, and since you’re a little better then me you won 6 games. You wagered $100 ($10x10) and won $120 ($20x6) for a profit of $20, while I lost $20.

But let’s say I am regular at the pool hall and the 3rd person decides that after each game I should get back $5 of $10 I put up. You still win 6 games, but I get $50 in rebates ($5x10) plus $60($15x4) for a total of $110 for a profit of $10, while you now lose $10 even though you are a better player and won more games. Is it fair? Are you going to continue to play under those conditions?



Rebates do not lower the takeout. Takeout is the proportion of the pool that is removed before calculating the payouts. Rebates are the proportion of the takeout that is returned some of the players . The effect of the takeout is lessen on those that receive them, but at the same time it increases the effect of the takeout on those who don’t or who get smaller rebates. With a proper field and pool size some wagers offer a reasonable opportunity to a knowledgeable player to overcome the takeout, a small player has no realistic chance overcome the rebate advantage a knowledgeable large bettor enjoys. But as somebody in the rebate business you already know that.


It really does not matter who is to blame for the current rebating system that is in place. But people need to recognize that with the current unequal rebate system lowering the takeout rates is going to make the game any better if a few large volume bettors (who tend to be very good horseplayers) enjoy a rebate advantage. And since the vast majority of the horseplayers are adversely affected by the current rebating system, the system is not very good for the long-term health of the sport.

But the difference is this.

The big bettor has no choice in the matter. Every 5-2 shot be bets, turns into a 2-1 shot. The small bettor can choose to pass this horse...or bet another horse. Every 5-2 shot the 2 dollar bets is 5-2, no matter what race or what track. Every 5-2 shot the big bettor wagers on is 2-1 (or less) depending on pool size.

[FenceBored]

But the difference is this.

The big bettor has no choice in the matter. Every 5-2 shot be bets, turns into a 2-1 shot. The small bettor can choose to pass this horse...or bet another horse. Every 5-2 shot the 2 dollar bets is 5-2, no matter what race or what track. Every 5-2 shot the big bettor wagers on is 2-1 (or less) depending on pool size.

Um, how does the small bettor have a choice when he bets at 5-2 as they're loading, then a couple of big bettors add their money and drop the price to 3-2? But, hey as long as the poor abused big bettors get their rebate it's all good. :ThmbUp:

[thaskalos]

Um, how does the small bettor have a choice when he bets at 5-2 as they're loading, then a couple of big bettors add their money and drop the price to 3-2? But, hey as long as the poor abused big bettors get their rebate it's all good. :ThmbUp:
The culprits for these late dropdowns in odds are the racetracks themselves, because they seek to appease those "whales" who insist on placing their computerized wagers at the last possible second...at the expense of everyone else.

Close the betting machines for 60 seconds prior to the start of the race...and only allow CANCELATIONS during this time period.

The whales are already receiving their substantial rebates...they should not also be allowed to terrorize the other bettors by creating havoc in the betting pools...in a manner which makes it impossible for the other bettors to protect themselves.

[Stillriledup]

Um, how does the small bettor have a choice when he bets at 5-2 as they're loading, then a couple of big bettors add their money and drop the price to 3-2? But, hey as long as the poor abused big bettors get their rebate it's all good. :ThmbUp:

Because he's not really betting a 5-2 shot, he's betting a 3-2 shot.

[Stillriledup]

The culprits for these late dropdowns in odds are the racetracks themselves, because they seek to appease those "whales" who insist on placing their computerized wagers at the last possible second...at the expense of everyone else.

Close the betting machines for 60 seconds prior to the start of the race...and only allow CANCELATIONS during this time period.

The whales are already receiving their substantial rebates...they should not also be allowed to terrorize the other bettors by creating havoc in the betting pools...in a manner which makes it impossible for the other bettors to protect themselves.

They should just have a rule that any bet over 200 has to be 'in' before 1 mtp.

But, that comes down to the old issue that the track doesnt care who wins the money as long as its bet....so, their goal isnt to protect a certain segment of bettors at the expense of another segment, their goal is to make sure as much money as possible is wagered...no matter how late it comes in and no matter how it comes in.

[thaskalos]

They should just have a rule that any bet over 200 has to be 'in' before 1 mtp.

But, that comes down to the old issue that the track doesnt care who wins the money as long as its bet....so, their goal isnt to protect a certain segment of bettors at the expense of another segment, their goal is to make sure as much money as possible is wagered...no matter how late it comes in and no matter how it comes in.I disagree!

If they were not so eager to protect the interests of the "whales"...then they would have come up with a way to deal with this odds-dropdown-while-the-race-is-running problem.

Close the machines early, or modernize their software to deal with this problem...whatever it takes.

It is ridiculous to place money on a horse and have it leave the starting gate at 5-1 odds...only to have it pay $7.00 as it stands in the winners circle.

[Stillriledup]

I disagree!

If they were not so eager to protect the interests of the "whales"...then they would have come up with a way to deal with this odds-dropdown-while-the- race-is-running problem.

Close the machines early, or modernize their software to deal with this problem...whatever it takes.

It is ridiculous to place money on a horse and have it leave the starting gate at 5-1 odds...only to have it pay $7.00 as it stands in the winners circle.

I think they're just eager to protect their own interests. Their 'stats' tell them that if they leave betting open and let people bet till the last second, they make more money.

As far as late odds drops go, people have to understand that this is part of the game, most of the money comes in at the last second, many people want to actually see if their horse goes into the gate nice and calm-like and THEN they proceed to wager.

Bettors are always complaining about their 3-1 shot going to 2-1 at the quarter pole, but we need to ask THIS pertinent question. When the person made the bet at 3-1, the reason they made the bet in the first place is that they thought 3-1 was 'value'. If that's true and 3-1 was value, other people got the same idea and took all that value away.

Some bettors who complain about late odds drops think they're the only ones who see the overlaid 3-1 shot hanging there at 0MTP.

[toussaud]

It's in everyone's best interest for me personally to win a lot of money, so you guys need to get on that.

[thaskalos]

I think they're just eager to protect their own interests. Their 'stats' tell them that if they leave betting open and let people bet till the last second, they make more money.

As far as late odds drops go, people have to understand that this is part of the game, most of the money comes in at the last second, many people want to actually see if their horse goes into the gate nice and calm-like and THEN they proceed to wager.

Bettors are always complaining about their 3-1 shot going to 2-1 at the quarter pole, but we need to ask THIS pertinent question. When the person made the bet at 3-1, the reason they made the bet in the first place is that they thought 3-1 was 'value'. If that's true and 3-1 was value, other people got the same idea and took all that value away.

Some bettors who complain about late odds drops think they're the only ones who see the overlaid 3-1 shot hanging there at 0MTP.
Are you telling me that this business of watching our horse's price get decimated while the race is being run is just "part of the game"...and that it was ALWAYS like this?

You don't think that it has anything to do with WHALES and COMPUTERIZED WAGERS?

Do you recall seeing this in years past?

[FenceBored]

Because he's not really betting a 5-2 shot, he's betting a 3-2 shot.

And the Easter Bunny lays Cadbury Creme Eggs.

[FenceBored]

It's in everyone's best interest for me personally to win a lot of money, so you guys need to get on that.

You got it, boss. Right away. :)

[Stillriledup]

Are you telling me that this business of watching our horse's price get decimated while the race is being run is just "part of the game"...and that it was ALWAYS like this?

You don't think that it has anything to do with WHALES and COMPUTERIZED WAGERS?

Do you recall seeing this in years past?

Things change. There's better technology out there now, we can't put Barbara Eden back in the bottle.

[rastajenk]

Nobody forces a bettor to put down 2K into a small pool and drive down his own odds. And there's no guarantee that 2k is coming back to him in the form of a 3-2 win payoff. His sure thing just might run second, or worse. So why do we need a bunch of new rules protecting gamblers from their own poor choices? That's why it's called gambling.

[thaskalos]

The poll question, as stated, doesn't make much sense...because it asks us to compare a reality (rebates) with a fantasy (lower takeout for everyone).

We ALL agree that a substantial lowering of the takeout would be a much better solution than offering rebates to SOME of the bettors...but we also know that this is NEVER going to happen.

The high takeouts are here to stay...and the only low takeouts we are EVER likely to see will be on the new "super-gimmicks" like the Pick-5.

[Stillriledup]

Nobody forces a bettor to put down 2K into a small pool and drive down his own odds. And there's no guarantee that 2k is coming back to him in the form of a 3-2 win payoff. His sure thing just might run second, or worse. So why do we need a bunch of new rules protecting gamblers from their own poor choices? That's why it's called gambling.

And he wouldnt put down 2k if there was no rebate. THis is a win-win for the racetracks.

To some people, 2k is like a dollar. They wipe themselves with 2 grand, so to them, what do you suggest, they bet 20 bucks a race?

[FenceBored]

And he wouldnt put down 2k if there was no rebate. THis is a win-win for the racetracks.

To some people, 2k is like a dollar. They wipe themselves with 2 grand, so to them, what do you suggest, they bet 20 bucks a race?

So, he wouldn't be driving down payouts if he didn't get the rebate and you see this as an argument for rebates?

[FenceBored]

Now just a minute here...

...

The player who wagers $10,000 during a day's play has contributed about $2000 to the racetrack...while the player who has a $200 daily handle has only been charged $40 for the privilege of playing this game.

Where is the "fairness" in that?

The person who buys a $65k Escalade in a state with 6% sales tax has contributed $3900 in sales tax whereas a person who buys a Kia for $9k has only been charged $540 for the privilege of driving on the road with that Escalade.

[Robert Goren]

The poll question, as stated, doesn't make much sense...because it asks us to compare a reality (rebates) with a fantasy (lower takeout for everyone).

We ALL agree that a substantial lowering of the takeout would be a much better solution than offering rebates to SOME of the bettors...but we also know that this is NEVER going to happen.

The high takeouts are here to stay...and the only low takeouts we are EVER likely to see will be on the new "super-gimmicks" like the Pick-5.If takeout stay at its present levels then horse racing is not here to stay. The day is coming when the only people betting will be "whales" and horse people. That is not a sustainable business model.

[rastajenk]

And he wouldnt put down 2k if there was no rebate. THis is a win-win for the racetracks.

To some people, 2k is like a dollar. They wipe themselves with 2 grand, so to them, what do you suggest, they bet 20 bucks a race?No, I'm suggesting that if this hypothetical big bettor is so smart or resourced as to be able to bet large, he may be smart enough to bet only 1K, or some other smaller amount where he's not dinging the odds as much. Or load up in another race with larger pools. Or any of about 1000 other variations of your scenario that don't require rebates or closing pools early or any other drastic changes.

[jelly]

If takeout stay at its present levels then horse racing is not here to stay. The day is coming when the only people betting will be "whales" and horse people. That is not a sustainable business model.



I think it's already here,look at Pennsylvania racing,from the size of their pools it looks like the only people betting those tracks are the owners and trainers.

[startngate]

I disagree!

If they were not so eager to protect the interests of the "whales"...then they would have come up with a way to deal with this odds-dropdown-while-the-race-is-running problem.

Close the machines early, or modernize their software to deal with this problem...whatever it takes.

It is ridiculous to place money on a horse and have it leave the starting gate at 5-1 odds...only to have it pay $7.00 as it stands in the winners circle.
Well, first of all, the horse actually isn't 5-1 when the horses leave the starting gate. The horse is a $7.00 horse. The problem is that while the tote system knows this, the TV display feeds (and thus the bettors) do not ... yet.

When the pools lock, the tote systems all send the money to the host track. Win pools go first to speed up the process of getting the win odds sent to all of the outlets. There is a secondary forced cycle at 10 seconds after off time to catch anything that may not have transmitted yet (for example, there are still States with close cancel delays).

Unfortunately, it takes another 15-30 seconds to get the data sent to the video production company, have it go through their systems, get it sent to the TV broadcast, uplinked to a satellite, and downlinked and processed at your outlet before you see it. There are also some video display systems that don't update the odds on the chicklets during the running of the race., so the change isn't shown until after the race. ADWs get the raw data, and then have to process the data to display it online themselves. Most ADWs refresh their toteboards every minute, so it's very easy to be more than a minute into the race before you see updates there.

Also, don't forget the fact that odds are displayed as fractions, and some of the smaller odds drops are not even an issue. For example a horse that is calculating at 5.00-1 will show as 5-1. A horse calculating at 4.95-1 will show as 9-2. Is that a significant odds drop? No, but the numbers look like they've dropped a half a point on the display when they really haven't.

Could some technology improvements help reduce the delay? Certainly. In fact it already has. Things were far worse a couple of years ago. The problem is no one wants to pay for anything, so advancing the technology is a slower process than it could be.

Closing the pools earlier changes nothing. All the late money is still going to come into the pools at the last second, and the horse you thought you were betting at 5-1 above is still only going to pay $7.00. You would get to see it before the break (possibly), but it's not going to change anything. The odds are going to shift on the same schedule as above.

[thaskalos]

Well, first of all, the horse actually isn't 5-1 when the horses leave the starting gate. The horse is a $7.00 horse. The problem is that while the tote system knows this, the TV display feeds (and thus the bettors) do not ... yet.

When the pools lock, the tote systems all send the money to the host track. Win pools go first to speed up the process of getting the win odds sent to all of the outlets. There is a secondary forced cycle at 10 seconds after off time to catch anything that may not have transmitted yet (for example, there are still States with close cancel delays).

Unfortunately, it takes another 15-30 seconds to get the data sent to the video production company, have it go through their systems, get it sent to the TV broadcast, uplinked to a satellite, and downlinked and processed at your outlet before you see it. There are also some video display systems that don't update the odds on the chicklets during the running of the race., so the change isn't shown until after the race. ADWs get the raw data, and then have to process the data to display it online themselves. Most ADWs refresh their toteboards every minute, so it's very easy to be more than a minute into the race before you see updates there.

Also, don't forget the fact that odds are displayed as fractions, and some of the smaller odds drops are not even an issue. For example a horse that is calculating at 5.00-1 will show as 5-1. A horse calculating at 4.95-1 will show as 9-2. Is that a significant odds drop? No, but the numbers look like they've dropped a half a point on the display when they really haven't.

Could some technology improvements help reduce the delay? Certainly. In fact it already has. Things were far worse a couple of years ago. The problem is no one wants to pay for anything, so advancing the technology is a slower process than it could be.

Closing the pools earlier changes nothing. All the late money is still going to come into the pools at the last second, and the horse you thought you were betting at 5-1 above is still only going to pay $7.00. You would get to see it before the break (possibly), but it's not going to change anything. The odds are going to shift on the same schedule as above.
What you say may be true...but there is another side to this argument which cannot be easily refuted because it is based on events which have actually happened...repeatedly!

There have been repeated cases where money was wagered on races LONG after the starting gates had opened...and - given the general incompetence of those in charge - people cannot be convinced that this sort of thing can never happen again.

[Stillriledup]

No, I'm suggesting that if this hypothetical big bettor is so smart or resourced as to be able to bet large, he may be smart enough to bet only 1K, or some other smaller amount where he's not dinging the odds as much. Or load up in another race with larger pools. Or any of about 1000 other variations of your scenario that don't require rebates or closing pools early or any other drastic changes.

But 1k is still a big enough bet to knock down his own price enough where his own effective takeout is much higher than the effective takeout of the 2 dollar bettor. If the win takeout is 17%, its 17% for the 2 dollar bettor. Every horse he bets, for the most part, won't budge even 20 cents. The 1k bettor however, it paying into a 20+takeout once his 1k cuts into his own profits. This is 'unfair' to the 1k bettor that he has to pay higher takeout yet anti rebate pundits are screaming that this IS fair and the larger bettor should continue to pay his much higher effective takeout with zero relief, while the 2 dollar guy gets to plug along at a much lower rate.