Quote:
Originally Posted by GMB@BP
So just to sum it up....
If you play into these pools and are not getting a rebate your pretty much a sucker?
|
Not a sucker. Such a harsh word. Somebody that has no chance of winning long term. But remember that racing is "entertainment", no different than going to a Basketball game or Hockey game or Movie or even Disneyworld. People pay to be entertained. You just have to get in the mind of a racing executive to understand how this works. They are not suckers they are given entertainment for their wager.
You see that racing believes that to build handle you give all the profits to a dozen or so betting groups and anyone else that can bet enough to earn a sizable enough rebate to turn a profit (and of course lives in the right state). This is the lifeblood of the sport and without this money there is no sport. Get with the program. Let's not look at the facts (that this sport did over 50% more handle it currently does when the rotten experiment began and the dollar was worth a heck of a lot more than it is worth today). Of course that is apple to oranges. You see racing was practically the only game in town back then and now racing has so much competition. So rather than compete with this competition (you know eliminate rebates, bring the takeout to comparable rates of the competition, give people a good product-competitive fields of 8+......), racing has a much better idea. Let raise the takeout. After all our core customers (The rebated ones) will bet just as much since they will be rebated more to offset the increased takeout, and the rest, you know the ones that understand that you have to pay to be entertained, well they will just pay more. After all seats to a Yankees game, or Lakers game or even your local movies are going up all the time. Racing has every right to raise it's prices too. As far as the saps are concerned, you know the ones that bring their family to the track for a day of entertainment, who cares about them, they don't even know what the takeout is and means. They are being entertained.
Meanwhile the public supports this small group of Whales/sharps in the name of entertainment. Not only will they(public) lose long term but they have no idea what odds they are getting on any bet they make. That 4-1 sure looked attractive while they were loading the gate, of course when the horse wins, the payoff is typically about $6.20. But remember they are saps. They probably think that they are smart because they knew when the horse was 4-1 that he was the most probable winner and had the smarts to bet him anyway. Moreover, that longshot winner they might have bet at 20-1+ was only 13-1 as they were loading the gate and unbeknownst to them, he was going to jump to 30-1 after the race went off. Our player now has the joy of saying "if I had only known he was going to be 30-1, I might have bet him, I am so smart".
Now let's talk numbers. I will ignore breakage. Assume 10 billion is the typical American handle(it is about 7 or 8 % more than that). Whales/sharps account for 20% of those pools(personally I think it is more-but I think that was the number thrown around in another discussion). Blended takeout is around 20% or 2 billion. The Whales/sharps blended loss on all bets is maybe 3%(pre rebate). The Whales/Sharps will lose .3 Billion. Thus the takeout for the public is losing 1.97 billion/8 billion bet so the public is losing about 24.6%. With all the lines ironed out as I discussed above, they are going to lose 20-30% on the dollar typically depending on their skill level.
Now what happen if racing were to shift to a 8% wps, 10 % exacta and 12%
exotic takeout. Obviously these numbers are an educated guess but I feel the reduction in takeout will lead to a wash as far as how much the Whales bet(they would now have to make a profit instead of a loss to win but the lower take gives them ample opportunities to do so. Assuming the first year the public bets 10 billion again (obviously all numbers would go up proportionately very quickly), the whales will bet their same 2 billion. So now the blended takout would be 10%, the Whales would make 5% on their
2 billion or .1 billion and the takeout would be 1 billion+.1 billion(whales profit)/8 billion or 1.1/8 or a blended takeout of about 13.75% for the public. Given the betting options racing offers, racing would transform from being one of the worst gambles for most to being amongst the best gambles for most. 13.75% takeout with all the entrants in a horse race and betting options in raceing is certainly on par with a 4.5% takeout in a 2 team sporting event in my opinion. Unbeatale games aren't even in the conversation.
Would this make everybody a winner, hell no Far from it.. But it will give the sharpest a mountain they can climb, not Mount Everest. It will give the public very fun game that they will lose their money at a reasonable rate not like they are being pick pocketed every time they walk up to a betting window. The more the public gets back, the more in turn they can churn, the longer they are able to stay in the game and want to stay in the game. The sharpest in the crowd is able to climb the mountain and starts betting more and more over time. The more the public bets the more whales are able to bet. Without rebates crw doesn't knock all the potential profit out of the game and best of all the odds shifts while still there are not nearly as big as they currently are. Everybody wins and no not a trophy. They win with a game that is fun again for everyone. Best of all, ultimately racing reaches height is could have never reached otherwise (and I mean profit wise not just handle wise) .........Then of course I wake up and I look at todays product
To anyone who thinks I am wrong about excessive takeout and rebates, I ask, how long can you subject your core fan base to 20 to 30 % roi losses before you chase them away? If they are millionaires than yes it is entertainment and they probably don't care. But most millionaires did not get that way by being stupid and subjecting themselves to being ripped off. . But for the masses who are living paycheck to paycheck, is there any place for horse race betting with an expected loss of 20 to 30%. How to you call that competing? What are they losing betting sports, or playing poker or blackjack or slots? 2%, 5%, 10%?
As far as breakage, it is completly idiotic and just another tax on the consumer. If the sport really wanted to grow the first thing they would do is to eliminate breakage. If the payout is 6.57, it is not rocket science for the clerk to pay out $6.00 plus a 57 cent voucher. At the end of the day the bettors cash in all their vouchers.
To racing's credit they have pretty much kept their fan base up. Since 2008 there on track attendance is about the same year to year.
According to the jockey club here are the year to year handle stats
http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=FB&area=8
However from 2008 to 2016 on track handle dipped 30% (maybe people on track betting with ADWS acccounting for some of this, but off track handle has dipped 20%). Now I doubt whales are betting less, I assume that they are betting more, so I assume that with that 20% drop in off track handle there is a greater than 20% loss in revenues(some whales get their deals directly with the host track). Now it does seem to have bottomed out. 2011 to 2016 off track handle is about the same year to year. Revenues/profits obviously I am not privy to. Maybe in racing's eyes they feel they have won the battle. Obviously don't know about 2017, but 2011 to 2016 was fairly consistent.
My argument is that if racing was done correctly it would be beatable, legal and extremely easy access (the last 2 it has). You dont have to drive to a casino, bet illegally with an offshore bookmaker or a corner bookie (all this might change of course and then racing will really be up the creek), and you don't have to be a computer geek to compete as I assume you do in DFS (I would rather watch paint dry then participate in DFS-so I know little about it). Funding is a piece of cake. For that reason racing should be head of the class (something that for some reason escapes this industry) and the only thing that keeps it from succeeding is the fact that only a tiny percentage of people playing the game have any chance of utilizing it's biggest strength of being beatable. All because of one stupid decision they hang onto year after year after year................rebates.
But back to the post I am responding to. What kind of legitimate business would run a gambling game and make their fan base suckers, especially in a pari mutuel game that there sole job is the run the races, make sure everything is fair, and pay out the winners ("Hey I have a poker game tonight, 9 guys will be there, but the game will be rigged so that only me and my buddy Joe will win, want to join us") But racing has basically set up a rigged game. It is not rigged in outcomes being fixed but it certainly is rigged so that the masses have virtually no chance of winning long term (unless they hit a major score) and will typically lose well beyond the takeout.
Forget the stupidity of what they are doing, what they are doing is downright criminal (not in a legal sense) but in a moral sense. We organize a
boycott because a track raises it's takeout, but when the track sets up a
playing field that is comepletey unfair to the masses(and we have had this for what 20 years now), we don't say a peep. "Adapt or Die", "Get your own rebates", "Build your own CRW" , "move to another state" "they can get rebates too they just need to be smarter" "they will just blow their money on the slot machines anyhow". I know the last time I brought up moraility in this forum it went over splendidly, but think about it anyhow (and then you can clean up the coffee that just splurted out of your mouth).
