Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Asaro
What I said is true. Informed people know this. I met with the CEO of the Australian company at the symposium in Arizona a couple years ago.
|
I'm not talking about austrailian companies I'm asking you a question about the NFL fixed odds players and bans. There does not need to be a complete shift in how the US game is played from tote to fixed odds. That's not what I'm advocating. I'm advocating some pick'em style bets horse vs horse being offered at fixed odds to expand wagering options and also to draw in sports bettors with those bets, however the primary wagering I believe can remain via the tote. We aren't going to take away your beloved pick five with 15% rake. What's counter productive is when we have people trying to shoot down any mention of fixed odds wagering period. That's not helping anyone especially when we already know millions of people are betting the NFL with fixed odds every week. Why don't you tell them they need to convert all of that to the tote so they don't get banned? See how that goes. You can lower takeout across the board and keep the same wagering options you have now, that will not change 'churn' in any way significant and we'll see the usual slow decline over the next several decades. People aren't going broke in a few hours at a racetrack because the rake isn't 4% lower. Takeout does need to be optimized. I agree with that. I'm not sure what that magic number is but it likely varies by the type of wager being made and field sizes might need to be considered.
