Quote:
Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith
I would agree in general, but there is something to be said for the bleeding (no pun to be intended) of customers due to death by a trillion paper cuts. In that sense, I'm kind of honest with myself. It isn't any one thing that pushes you out, but it's all the little things that gradually land you in a spot where you'd rather watch re-runs of Live PD than watch replays of races and hunt for action. I'm hardly a huge Keeneland customer anyway these days, but something like this certainly makes it a whole lot easier to watch more Live PD in lieu of Keeneland.
|
Here's what I think, in a nutshell:
The effect of the takeout can only be properly determined when we take the totality of the racing product into consideration. If the fields are full and competitive, then the profit-minded player can still find worthwhile bets...even if the win-takeout is at 17.5%. But if a track offers an overabundance of uncompetitive 6-horse fields...then the lucrative bets dry up, even if the takeout stands at 14%. These takeout rates don't operate in a vacuum...their effect is dependent on other things.
If a bettor likes the races at Keeneland for the size of the fields and the overall "value" that he finds there...but hates the races in NY because of the plethora of short fields that are offered there...then the takeout difference between the two tracks isn't likely to make him change his mind about these two racetracks.
IMO...Keeneland can get away with charging these higher takeouts...because it's an abbreviated, "marquee" meet, with competitive racing. But this will be interpreted as "horseplayer stupidity" by the other tracks...and we'll soon see these increased takeouts even at the places where the 6-horse fields dominate. It's the PRECEDENT that I rail against...not the Keeneland takeout hike in particular. As a serious bettor...I can easily avoid a particular track that I deem "overly-greedy". But I am left with no track to play when that "greed" spreads everywhere else.
