Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyC
You are making a lot of assumptions. Pools would be much larger? Doubtful. Less volatile? Doubtful. If pools were much larger it would mean that many new sharp gamblers have entered the game and sharp gamblers would be betting right near the bell. Do you think that ADWs will be lining up to take a substantially lower commission on bets without the ability to pay rebates?
|
Of course pools would be larger. Everyone (except whales) would be getting back more money on every bet they collect. Their roi's will be better, their money lasts longer, they see more value opportunities on the board, they enjoy the game more, they stay in the game, they enter the game, they come back to the game....Whales just react to what we do. The more we bet the more they bet so ultimately they will bet more money too. No assumptions, pure logic.
Regarding the volatility, yes most sharps/whale are going to bet late, but the fact they don't make money by hammering a horse they make 2-1 down to 9/5 or even 8/5(depending on what kind of rebate they are getting) limits how much they will pound the horse.
RE adw's two of the biggest are owned by racing companies. I don't have the numbers so I can't give you a solution that works, but I am sure if there was a will it would take all of five minutes to come up with one. Also do you think it makes sense that some ADW is making so much money that the can give up to 20% rebates on some bets at some tracks and still remain profitable. Talk about idiotic. Why have ADW's and certain players become partners at the expense of all other players? How does that make the game sustainable long run? Adw's provide a function and should be compensated for that function only. On marketing gimmicks deals can be discussed.
