Quote:
|
Racing is not like that. If some huge bettor is getting a 6 to 8% rebate in the win pool and working on -3%, he is netting 3 to 5% profit, which is fine. What is not fine is that he is driving up the takeout on the rest of the betting public and more importantly he is driving down the prices on the horses who have the best chance of winning long run.
|
First, I agree the CAW betting makes the pools more efficient. That's a problem for everyone (including them) because there are fewer overlays or even horses that are close to break even. I'm not even really complaining about it. It's a free market and we are all competing.
Second, their ability to bet so late is also problematical. Their use of computers to bet is an edge, but so is my use of a database now and so was taping replays from the Harvey Pack show before everyone had them etc..
Third, the money for their rebates has ZERO impact on my profits and losses.
If the track take is 16%, the public is going to lose 16% plus breakage regardless of whether the CAWs are in the pool or not and regardless of whether they get no rebates or large rebates.
It's a separate budget that cuts into the track's/ADW's bottom line not the public's.
The most you can argue is that if they weren't giving large rebates to the CAWs, they could lower the take a small amount across the board instead and keep their bottom line steady.
Are they better off giving rebates based on volume or operating with a lower take across the board?
That's a business decision.
