[quote=romankoz;2859186]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poindexter
For a sports bettor that loses 4.5% at random it is not a huge climb to become profitable (not saying it is easy either). But when you are talking about the non rebated losing 20% in wps pools and around 27 to 28% in most other exotic pools,
Am I to assume you have 20% takeouts in the win place show at all tracks or is it here and there? Similar ask about exotic pools?
If so there's no doubt a serious bettor should only be betting on second or third favourites in the USA but ONLY if the favourite is deemed a false favourite on FORM. I highlight FORM as there are favourites that are false prices but should still be the favourite.
We had a perfect example this weekend with Nature Strip, the world's best sprinter ratings wise. He was certainly the right horse to have as favourite but his price a tick over 1/1 ($4 US) was unders.
|
I know you are sort of new to this forum and you bet racing maybe in Europe. I don't know anything about how racing works out there. The closest I ever came to playing at Betfair was playing at EhorseX many years ago, and I loved it.
If you are interested in my point, just do a search using the search term rebates. I have been posting essentially the same thing and having same arguments for a number of years. The takeout is driven up rebates. So while most tracks have wps takeout in the 16% range, and exacta/doubles in the 18 to 20 % range and higher takeouts in other exotic pools. For some reason the major venues only believe in reduced takeout (many 15% takeout pick 5 pools) in the low probability wagers (which of course is the opposite of what they should be doing, but for the horse bettor the pick 5's become the best betting opportunity). Anyways, in a recent post, somebody that seems to access to the info provided data that indicated that after the rebated teams (whales, caws, whatever you want to call them), that the roi for the rest of the public was -20% in the wps pools and 27 to 28% in most other exotic pools (at NYRA for 10 the last 10 years). That just illustrates how much damage the caws are able to do with pool access and high rebates they get.
FWIW, my solution is that they need to eliminate all rebates, charge a 8% takeout in the wps pools, 10% takeout in the double and exacta pools and a 15% takeout in all other exotic pools. I believe that those are the numbers that are optimal. No scientific study just my gut as someone who has played this game and other gambling games for a long time and has a real good feel for what those numbers are. That is a playing field that gives everyone a chance to win, will create an army of horse racing bettors beating the sport and growing their bankroll and feeding the pools vs a couple dozen (or whatever the number is) caw bettors, who will eventually cannibalize the market so much there will be no market, and will keep the losses for aspiring horse bettors within reason. Since the folks creating the final odds (the Caw) will have to leave a gap between fair value which is would then be above fair value and not below fair value providing better wagering opportunities for all. That way folks like Robert Fischer have a legit chance to make 30K betting a sport they are passionate about instead of having to be complete or get very good rebates to have any chance at all.
By the way regarding your post, these team aren't just betting the favorite they are betting any horse with perceived value to
below fair value. The rebates do the rest. The non rebated bettor has no chance of beating this game with the exception of a tiny percentage of bettors. They basically take away all value on the "live horses" and provide more value on "dead horses".
