Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Racing Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 05-21-2018, 04:20 PM   #16
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
To me...the only way by which the "average" horseplayer can keep from getting destroyed in this game is by either keeping his bets at the "insignificant" level...or by playing the game infrequently. The average horseplayer lacks the desire(ability?) to gain the proficiency needed in order to keep the costs of regular participation in this game to an acceptable level. Without exception...every regular horseplayer that I know has his own horror story to tell...and I've got a few horror stories of my own.
I agree with you.

If you don't mind a small indulgence, I'm a reasonable bright guy with an aptitude for this kind of thing (as you and many others here are). I've been studying this game for over 40 years. I watch replays, read charts, do statistical studies, develop my own metrics and methods that I'm constantly testing and tweaking, made my own figures at times. I'm pretty much a nut. Now I even have a personal database to quicken the pace and produce daily reports.

There's a reason I don't make many bets.

It's not lack of interest. It's lack of opportunity. There aren't many races where I think I'm bringing something to the table that makes me confident I actually have an edge. I'm not in it for action. I'm in it because I love the sport and intellectual challenge. If I'm going to gamble on it too, I want to win. If I was playing a lot of races every day at my favorite track, I'm pretty sure I'd have some horror stories too.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
classhandicapper is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2018, 04:24 PM   #17
Maximillion
Registered User
 
Maximillion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
IMO...the majority of the regular horseplayers have gotten destroyed in this game, to the point where they've cut down drastically on their participation...if they haven't stopped playing altogether. Our tracks and OTBs are virtual ghost-towns...and that ain't because the folks are betting from home. If the majority of the horseplayers were only losing the takeout...then there would still be some signs of life at our brick-and-mortar betting outlets. It takes considerable competence in order to lose just the takeout in this game...IMO.
You wrote a post a few years ago(?) about your opinion that full-card simulcasting may have killed off or exposed a lot of players...this is what I think happened as well.
Maximillion is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2018, 04:27 PM   #18
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post
Yeah, we agree. I just used to spend a lot of time in NYCOTB. I knew a lot the awful types. :-)
True story.

I knew a guy that used to bet 2K a pop fairly routinely when he came to the OTB in my old neighborhood. He would bet that way right into the smallest pools for the day. His horses would always open up as heavy favorites. Then he used to complain to me that all his horses were going off short even though they were a good price in the morning line. I tried to explain to him that he was knocking the horses down by betting so much at very small tracks, but it didn't sink in. Finally, I gave up. I started asking him which horses he was going to bet because there almost had to be overlays elsewhere in those races.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
classhandicapper is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2018, 04:49 PM   #19
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poindexter View Post
How do you know? Are you their accountant? If they lost 20-50k in a year it means one of three things.
1) They have the money to blow and are willing to blow it
2) they are putting themselves and their family at financial risk, aka degenerates or compulsive gamblers
3) they think they are good at the game (and either hit a a bad run or they are overrating their own ability to play the game).


Whatever the case, Poker has given them the confidence to chuck down that kind of money each year whether it is from past results, watching the pros on tv or whatever. I don't see how losing 30 to 40% horse racing is going to make them want to shift their money from the poker tables to horse racing pools, but if they were dealing with proper pricing that may very well be an option for them. Even those that are worth many millions and are willing to bet huge money to get their juices flowing, for the most part want to think they have a chance of winning. They may very well be betting horses to and getting rebated also, but if they are not, they certainly will not consider racing a fair game relative to poker. They may be rich and reckless, but likely are not fools.

Also if you compare the non rebated player who is willing to lose $50,000 at 32.5%(means he bets $153,000+ a year) takeout a year and reduce his takeout to 18.5% (per my example above), he might be willing to up the amount bet to half a million a year (even if he loses significantly more-$92,500 instead of $50,000) because he can afford to and he is getting more bang for the buck. If he is currently rebated, you can argue that he plays currently because he is rebated, but there are plenty of perks that could be given that are not detrimental to the betting pools.
1. I know because I have seen a number of them play and because I know more than a few of them.

2. The reality is your categories 1 through 3 describe most gamblers.

3. I think a lot of people make significant mistakes by assuming that gamblers are rational economic actors.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2018, 05:22 PM   #20
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximillion View Post
You wrote a post a few years ago(?) about your opinion that full-card simulcasting may have killed off or exposed a lot of players...this is what I think happened as well.
It flatters me that you remember. Yes...that's exactly what I think happened. In the old days, the players had learned to manage their money during the day's play. But full-card simulcasting was sprung upon us without any warning...and it was the typical "kid in the candy store" scenario.
__________________
Live to play another day.

Last edited by thaskalos; 05-21-2018 at 05:36 PM.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-22-2018, 12:37 PM   #21
AndyC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poindexter View Post
Let's use your terminology. We have a typical racetrack with $100,000 bet win pool per race. We know breakage exists but I am not accounting for it in this post. The Whales account for about 30% of the money bet, at about break even, but feed nicely off of the the rebates. Then you have the serious players who as a group account for another 30% of the pool at -10% collectively(some are rebated and have a smaller target, some thing they can win but can't win etc, some are typical owners and trainers and fans of the sport who may exceed the public but still lose and some are winning players even without rebate and some are your typical serious player, who talks a good game, but when you look at the end of the year at the final outcome, they do not finish in the black or they need rebates to get them there). Then you have the "recreational players" who account for 40% of the pools. Now the track is going to make it's 16% takeout no matter what, so of that $100,000 bet only $84,000 is going back. The whales will get back $30,000, the serious players will get back $27,000, so that means the recreational players are going to get back $27,000 for their $40,000 bet. As a group they will lose $13,000 on $40,000 bet or 32.5% or over double the takeout.

These are estimates but I am sure they are fairly close to reality. No matter how you fudge the numbers it will not make a huge difference. What is so ridiculous is that racing's future is based off the performance of those that get crushed, the recreational player. These are the ones that racing needs to evolve into serious players in the future. However, they have no chance. They cannot overcome a takeout of that magnitude unless they are exceptional (1 in a 100)......[/B]
Your analysis works for the serious players but is off the mark for recreational players. Serious players recognize overlay opportunities and as such are hurt when betting reduces or eliminates any overlay. In order to be hurt by the whales bets you need to be on the right side of the bet, the overlay side. Recreational bettors end up on the right side of a bet by accident and are generally placing their bets on the wrong side, the underlay side. One of the consequences of having a lot of smart money in pools is that they become more efficient. As such, odds become more efficient at both ends of the spectrum with both overlays and underlays. In a parimutuel system it is impossible to bet down odds on some horses and not have the odds go up on others. Those other horses are generally the horses perceived to be on the wrong side by the smart bettors. The very horses that recreational players bet. If players are getting paid more for underlays is that a bad thing for recreational players?

I don't dispute that the poor players are paying the bill for the other players. The facts, however, don't support the case that somehow the whales hasten the process.
AndyC is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-22-2018, 12:39 PM   #22
AndyC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
Yes...but horse racing is a much more disheartening affair to the "losers" than the other gambling forms are. When a poker player loses...he doesn't actually believe that some sinister force separated him from his money.
I have not heard too many recreational players claim that sinister forces were the cause of their losses.
AndyC is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-22-2018, 12:41 PM   #23
AndyC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
IMO...the majority of the regular horseplayers have gotten destroyed in this game, to the point where they've cut down drastically on their participation...if they haven't stopped playing altogether. Our tracks and OTBs are virtual ghost-towns...and that ain't because the folks are betting from home. If the majority of the horseplayers were only losing the takeout...then there would still be some signs of life at our brick-and-mortar betting outlets. It takes considerable competence in order to lose just the takeout in this game...IMO.
I agree. It isn't a recreational player issue, it is a regular player issue.
AndyC is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-22-2018, 01:29 PM   #24
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyC View Post
I have not heard too many recreational players claim that sinister forces were the cause of their losses.
Whenever a favorite languishes, or a longshot wins...all I hear around me are voices that my companions were "robbed". You must be hanging around with a better crowd...
__________________
Live to play another day.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-22-2018, 02:46 PM   #25
Poindexter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyC View Post
Your analysis works for the serious players but is off the mark for recreational players. Serious players recognize overlay opportunities and as such are hurt when betting reduces or eliminates any overlay. In order to be hurt by the whales bets you need to be on the right side of the bet, the overlay side. Recreational bettors end up on the right side of a bet by accident and are generally placing their bets on the wrong side, the underlay side. One of the consequences of having a lot of smart money in pools is that they become more efficient. As such, odds become more efficient at both ends of the spectrum with both overlays and underlays. In a parimutuel system it is impossible to bet down odds on some horses and not have the odds go up on others. Those other horses are generally the horses perceived to be on the wrong side by the smart bettors. The very horses that recreational players bet. If players are getting paid more for underlays is that a bad thing for recreational players?

I don't dispute that the poor players are paying the bill for the other players. The facts, however, don't support the case that somehow the whales hasten the process.
As pointed out by CH, their is a range in the recreational player. Some might be exceptional for their level and lose takeout -5% with a good distribution through takeout + 5 %. Of course it goes up from there. Your point is that when the whales make their bets they help the guys that are losing 45% or 50% roi and yes they likely do. But these playes unless they get better at the game, or have a huge tolerance for losing money or have so much money they do not care, are not part of racing's future. They likely will never evolve into a player that might bet 1/4 million or half million or a million dollars a year or more. So yes for the bottom 30/40 percent of this group, you have a good point, whales probably do not hurt them so what is the difference. But racing needs to convert those within 5% of takeout into more serious players. That is a large group of players.

I am talking about the future of racing. I am talking about providing some 21 year old who goes to Belmont Park for the first time with some friends and finds the game thrilling. He likes to gamble, finds the challenge of determining who will win a horse race an interesting puzzle. He watches you tube videos, picks up some books on the subject and he want to evolve into a serious horse player. This is the future of racing, not whales who come and go as the opportuinites arise, not us dudes in our 50s and 60's and 70's who may have already given the game up, or have a lot fewer years to give the game etc. If racing continue to price out the 21 year old and many others for that matter, there will be no future in racing. Despite their delusions otherwise, the main enternment value of horse racing is solely the gambling aspect. Properly priced this game is ten fold the best gambling game around (I know you disagree Andy C) imo. It becomes beatable, complex and the greatest intellectual challenge (I think that is what Andy Beyer said in one of his books). Right now, if you are not getting hefty rebates it is simply pick your poison, because no matter who you bet there just isn't much value there. For most over the short run they can hope to get lucky and over the long run just add up their losses. At this point I would say that for most they are better off taking a stab at a pick 5 or pick 6 carryover then they are trying to grind out profits in the other pools. Imagine what would happen to the pools if every horse player came to a similar conclusion,

Now Dilane (and the racing industry itself) come from the school of thought that gamblers expect to lose, so what. Some maybe, but overall I disagree with that premise. I get why they feel that way. If you run an adw and you see player X lost 21% in 2010 and 18% in 2011 and 25% in 2012 and 30% in 2013 and 14% in 2014..your reaction is going to be they just don't care. I do not believe it is that simple.

Any game that is beatable blackjack, sports betting, poker, horse racing, fantasy, has a leg up on the rest. All the beatable games are still very tough to beat, so every gambler will go the direction(s) that work best for them, and many will lose consistently in striving to beat these games. But that doesn't mean they want to lose, expect to lose or will continue to allow themselves to lose. In their mind there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Poker and sports betting are largely the same game they were (obviously the competition is more educated in poker), either you climb the mountain or you don't. Racing brought in whales. They basically changed the landscape to the point where that light at the end of the tunnel is gone. What % of current players realize that I am not sure, but they ultimately will find out. Once they realize that, they will exit the game and find another. Plenty already have and it is quite an easy and convenient excuse for this industry to blame competition.
Poindexter is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-22-2018, 02:47 PM   #26
MadVindication
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
It flatters me that you remember. Yes...that's exactly what I think happened. In the old days, the players had learned to manage their money during the day's play. But full-card simulcasting was sprung upon us without any warning...and it was the typical "kid in the candy store" scenario.
Curbing impulsiveness is why I don't do online betting (for horse racing). At least not at this point. I can set myself up for discipline by having to travel to an OTB to make bets. And it won't take large bets. I'd rather learn the sport with comparatively small change and play to stay in the game. Learn to pick my races, become less fresh and excitable about it, and then bet higher and online when it makes sense to me.

Sometimes I just paper play from home for fun. It's still entertaining since I genuinely like the sport and not just the the big ROI opportunity.
MadVindication is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-22-2018, 03:03 PM   #27
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
I am going to put out a contrary hypothesis.

Most people here analyze the decline of horse racing in exclusively betting terms. So it's takeout, or it's whales, or it's something else that affects pools. And I get that. Betting is important.

But try a different approach. When my father was a kid (pre-WW2), the three biggest sports in America were baseball, boxing and horse racing. Baseball isn't quite as big as it was then, but it is still a huge sport.

But the other two have declined.

Meanwhile, pro football was nothing back then, and is now the biggest sport. College football was big but second tier back then, and is now on the first tier. Basketball was nothing back then and is now either the second or third biggest sport. Hockey is a lot bigger now than it was then. There are other sports, such as NASCAR, MMA, and beach volleyball, which have risen up since then.

So what happened? You can't explain all these different things by looking at betting.

What happened is the public's tastes changed.

And if you really want to bring people back to horse racing, THAT, and not any issue of takeout, is your marketing challenge. If you can do THAT, then you can worry about charging them a bit less to bet or getting some of the whales out of the pool or whatever. But if you can't do that, none of the reforms of the betting system are going to matter because horse racing will be a closed system with an ever smaller and older player pool.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-22-2018, 03:28 PM   #28
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
I am going to put out a contrary hypothesis.

Most people here analyze the decline of horse racing in exclusively betting terms. So it's takeout, or it's whales, or it's something else that affects pools. And I get that. Betting is important.

But try a different approach. When my father was a kid (pre-WW2), the three biggest sports in America were baseball, boxing and horse racing. Baseball isn't quite as big as it was then, but it is still a huge sport.

But the other two have declined.

Meanwhile, pro football was nothing back then, and is now the biggest sport. College football was big but second tier back then, and is now on the first tier. Basketball was nothing back then and is now either the second or third biggest sport. Hockey is a lot bigger now than it was then. There are other sports, such as NASCAR, MMA, and beach volleyball, which have risen up since then.

So what happened? You can't explain all these different things by looking at betting.

What happened is the public's tastes changed.


And if you really want to bring people back to horse racing, THAT, and not any issue of takeout, is your marketing challenge. If you can do THAT, then you can worry about charging them a bit less to bet or getting some of the whales out of the pool or whatever. But if you can't do that, none of the reforms of the betting system are going to matter because horse racing will be a closed system with an ever smaller and older player pool.
You can't compare the other spectator sports to horse-racing...because the racing fan is an active PARTICIPANT...instead of just an observer. Our sport didn't decline because of the advent of football, basketball and the MMA...it declined because it is no longer an affordable gambling game for the majority of the gamblers out there. Horse-racing doesn't have a "marketing" problem; I dare say that almost all of the gamblers out there, regardless of their game of choice, have gotten acquainted with horse-racing at one time or another. But they didn't stay in our game for long...and THAT'S the real problem. Instead of trying to indoctrinate "young players" to our game...the racing industry should be asking themselves why the game has such a difficult time retaining the "older players" that it used to count on.

Now...if you were comparing horse-racing to sports-BETTING...then I would see the commonalities.
__________________
Live to play another day.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-22-2018, 03:35 PM   #29
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
You can't compare the other spectator sports to horse-racing...because the racing fan is an active PARTICIPANT...instead of just an observer. Our sport didn't decline because of the advent of football, basketball and the MMA...it declined because it is no longer an affordable gambling game for the majority of the gamblers out there. Horse-racing doesn't have a "marketing" problem; I dare say that almost all of the gamblers out there, regardless of their game of choice, have gotten acquainted with horse-racing at one time or another. But they didn't stay in our game for long...and THAT'S the real problem. Instead of trying to indoctrinate "young players" to our game...the racing industry should be asking themselves why the game has such a difficult time retaining the "older players" that it used to count on.

Now...if you were comparing horse-racing to sports-BETTING...then I would see the commonalities.
1. People bet on other sports too. Indeed, sports betting is a big part of the rise of pro football and the NCAA tournament, among other things.

2. If horse racing's decline were exclusively a betting phenomenon, why did boxing decline at the same time? And why did other sports rise up?

3. The racetracks used to be filled with what were called "$2 bettors". Yes, they bet, a little. But their main affinity for the sport was aesthetic, not gambling.

Indeed, for most of horse racing's history as a major, popular sport, it was actually very hard to make a big gambling score. When horse racing was popular, there were very few exotic bets. A daily double, and then later on a handful of exactas. It was a much, much worse gambling game back then than it is now. And yet it was more popular.

And even now, where horse racing still IS successful, it attracts lots of casual bettors. Like at Saratoga or at the TC races.

4. I am sorry if it offends any older posters on this board, but I think it is absolutely stupid and self-destructive for any sport to cater to old people. Old people get sick and die, and they also never make any activity they are involved in hip and trendy and marketable.

You want to have horse races available to bet on for years to come? You need to attract younger people. Period.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-22-2018, 03:41 PM   #30
AndyC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
Whenever a favorite languishes, or a longshot wins...all I hear around me are voices that my companions were "robbed". You must be hanging around with a better crowd...
I interpreted your comment to mean that sinister forces were the whales. Those other sinister forces surely exist or nobody would ever lose.
AndyC is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.