Bill Finley: "Horseplayers Are Stupid"

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by comet52

Nice job finessing your way out of having to stand up for yourself. You attack me by naming some unknowns on another message board, then can't be bothered to make your own case. I actually thought of you as one of the best posters on this board, up until today.

Dude, you asked me why I would not post such a thing on a gambling message board like you posted, and I said it was because what you posted was so far out of reality, that I would never be able to type those words.

Clearly I am not alone, as two people here think you are Fred Pope.

Gambling on skill games is all vig. Nothing else, vig, vig, vig. If poker raked 30% out of the pools there would be no poker on television. If football games were pk -210 and -210 there would be no football betting. You can get high vig in games like lotteries, but lottery players are not gamblers.

In 2002, the skill game market, with low vig games is estimated at $100B worldwide. by 2012 it is estimated to be 500% bigger. Yes, bigger by a factor of five - so much for that bad economy. It is because vig has gotten lower and lower, not higher, and gamblers are rational consumers and flock to low vig.

It is why, as I posted, when horseplayers go to Wong's board, or two plus two and state something about horse racing, 4 out of 5 skill game gamblers respond "how can you play that game at 20% takeouts, spend your time doing something worthwhile."

When a $500B market thinks you are nuts to play a game because of the vig, and your customers are 2% of the market and falling, your post makes no sense. It is so far out of reality, that every poster here noticed immediately.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by comet52

The expansion of gambling in so many venues and online has devastated racing in much the same way the internet devastated print newspapers. It's adapt or die time. Reducing the price of the newspaper isn't saving print journalism and reducing the price of racing, while a nice step in the right direction, will not save racing. The game needs a radical overhaul and some creative leadership.

I have heard this argument 100 times...and I still don't understand it.

What is this "expansion of gambling in so many venues and online"...which "has devastated racing in much the same way as the internet has devastated print newspapers"?

Where have all these horseplayers who have fled the game, supposedly gone?

Are they at the casinos playing slots, or blackjack...or online playing poker?

IMO...no they are not!

Once a player gets introduced to this game...he is not likely to exchange it for another. This game - when it's run right - is unquestionably the best gambling game around, for the "thinking" player.

Unfortunately though...this game becomes the worst gambling game in existence, when it is run by incompetent fools...and that is what we are experiencing now.

The horse racing industry rushed into the full-simulcasting concept, without properly educating the player as to its pitfalls...and as a result, the horseplayer jumped in like a kid in a candy story, and suffered significant losses...which sapped him of his enthusiasm for the game.

QUESTION: In a game where 98% of the players lose...what do you think will happen to these "losing" players, when they are presented with the unlimited betting opportunities of today's full-card simulcasting menu...coupled with this game's onerous takeout?

ANSWER: Those losing players will suffer devastating losses in record time...and will either go broke, stop playing for fear of going broke, or drastically reduce their play to make their money last as long as they possibly can.

And this is where we find ourselves now, IMO. The vast majority of the horseplayers who have fled the game are not partaking in this vast gambling expansion...

They are on the sidelines...licking their wounds.

And a higher takeout is the last thing they need...when they decide to get back in the game.

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Unfortunately though...this game becomes the worst gambling game in existence, when it is run by incompetent fools...and that is what we are experiencing now.

Good post overall with a lot of truth in it (imo).

Adding to the full time simo angle that you have is the amount of churn. If your game has a high take and increases opps, people go broke sooner. The only thing I think I might disagree with a bit is the education angle that you have.

When your rake is high, and you have more opps you are almost destined to go broke.

For 1k bankroll with $100 bets a horseplayer will churn his bankroll 5.4 times at current rates (i.e. make 54 bets before busting). For some other games:

Lotteries 22 bets
Horse racing 54 bets
Sports Betting 221 bets
Poker 238 bets
Craps 705 bets
Video Poker 2955 bets
Black Jack 3553 bets

Some of those are with perfect play etc.

Do we blame people for going to play the pass line at craps for a good time, or Black Jack to have a good time, and shunning racing; or do we shun racing for being so stupid in their churn rates? We certainly should not blamer customers - they are simply being rational consumers.

It is a tough sport. If it took you 54 bets to lose all your money in 1975, you could play many days of races at your local track. Now you could lose that by 3PM.

The obvious solution in the internet world is to give rebates back at the end of the day, so that player has bullets tomorrow to play with. Successful places like Betfair and rebate shops and places like pinnaclesports.com realized it rather quickly and did that; and got some players to keep playing racing. Racing itself has done virtually nothing to help a player churn more - but make it worse, as witnessed by the CA takeout hike last week.

[OTM Al]

Dean, I still will argue this comparison is a bad one because it ignores time. Despite the greater number of plays I would guess your money is gone faster in the final four items on your list than with racing, unless of course you are betting every single race at every track, in which case you probably do deserve to lose and will likely go down even quicker than you indicate. Sports betting is likely the best deal on your list.

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

Dean, I still will argue this comparison is a bad one because it ignores time. Despite the greater number of plays I would guess your money is gone faster in the final four items on your list than with racing, unless of course you are betting every single race at every track, in which case you probably do deserve to lose and will likely go down even quicker than you indicate. Sports betting is likely the best deal on your list.

You are an economic guy, so you tell me - time is a factor, but how much time does one take to have a good time to maximize his utility so he will come back?

If four university kids go and play black jack for 4 hours on a Friday, they will win some nights, lose some nights, and break about even a lot of the time. If it takes 4000 hands to go broke, that's a lot of black jack. I would come back.

For racing? Those same four kids go, bet five racetracks at the casino, lose after fifty bets - they could do that in less time it takes them to play a fraction of the hands needed to lose at BJ.

The best games maximize utility do they not? Time is only a minor factor if looked at like I have above, no?

If you had to advise someone to go to a betting parlor and have a good time for a few hours, would you send them to racing, or 1.4% take on a video poker machine?

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by DeanT

You are an economic guy, so you tell me - time is a factor, but how much time does one take to have a good time to maximize his utility so he will come back?

The best games maximize utility do they not? Time is only a minor factor if looked at like I have above, no?

If you had to advise someone to go to a betting parlor and have a good time for a few hours, would you send them to racing, or 1.4% take on a video poker machine?

Yes I am and therefore I will argue with your assumptions because I think your concepts are wrong. First off, utility maximization is done over ones own personal preferences. Therefore your first question is phrased incorrectly. The only sure thing is more is better but returns are diminishing. But to assume one race equals one spin of a slot machine or one hand of cards is ridiculous.

Time is hugely important unless you are just throwing your money mindlessly. You call for perfect play in your other examples, but not in racing, where part of perfect play is waiting for the races you hold an advantage at. Only sports betting offers this option from the games you mention in that way. The other games you have to be in to see the situation and often it is too late.

The comparison you want to make is heavily reliant on time. A player may make only 5 bets at a track in a day. How many times does an equally competant player push the button for video poker? So time tells us how much takeout we face over the same period. Maybe the take on a video poker machine is only 1.5% but what is the time dependant take over the same period it takes the horseplayer to place a single bet? Time is crucial and to ignore it is being willfully blind. Vegas is not the way it is because people go in and play 5 pulls of a slot and leave.

And to your last question, I would advise the person to do with his or her money what they get the most fun from.

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

Yes I am and therefore I will argue with your assumptions because I think your concepts are wrong. First off, utility maximization is done over ones own personal preferences. Therefore your first question is phrased incorrectly. The only sure thing is more is better but returns are diminishing. But to assume one race equals one spin of a slot machine or one hand of cards is ridiculous.

Time is hugely important unless you are just throwing your money mindlessly. You call for perfect play in your other examples, but not in racing, where part of perfect play is waiting for the races you hold an advantage at. Only sports betting offers this option from the games you mention in that way. The other games you have to be in to see the situation and often it is too late.

I understand what you are saying. I never said each hand or race is equal. I spoke of hit rates, churn and time.

But can you answer my query? What gives an average person more chance to maximize his or her utility over a few hours a week at a betting establishment - blackjack or horse racing?

Blackjack has 50 hands an hour. Horse racing, with perfect play, with 15 tracks going, might have 2 or 3 plays an hour, maybe more.

So, we can sell four hours at 15 plays in racing, where after four trips you are broke if you start with $1000.

Or BJ sells 200 hands for four hours, where it takes you 20 trips before you are broke.

Doesnt (for the average person) Blackjack sound more fun (you get more action), more profitable (you last 20 weeks) and more of a fun game you would tell friends about playing?

That's all I am asking.

Should we not work on ways to make horse racing moire like Blackjack, rather than the other way around, if we want more average every day people to play?

Edit - I see your edit now. It makes sense, with the point you are making

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by DeanT

Edit - I see your edit now. It makes sense, with the point you are making

I started on my iPad, which for some reason doesn't allow you to scroll inside the dialog window and I got stuck in the middle of my post, so had to switch on the laptop. Technology....

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

I started on my iPad, which for some reason doesn't allow you to scroll inside the dialog window and I got stuck in the middle of my post, so had to switch on the laptop. Technology....

You kids today with your technology

[rrbauer]

Most of the money that has left horse race betting is due to attrition, not competition. (Attrition of bankrolls due to a variety of reasons, including the bankroll-owners demise.) The competition factor comes into play when considering the overall appeal, including the takeout, of horse race betting compared to other forms of betting where ATTRACTING NEW MONEY IS CONCERNED.

Horse race betting has not attracted a pro rata share of the new money that comes into the gambling scene because it is still being managed by the monopoly mentality. The monopoly mentality is so busy trying to preserve the status quo that competing with other forms of gambling for new customers and new money is not on the table for those charged with "managing" the game. The net result is a scramble to survive and avoid shutdown; not prosper and grow. Being "down a little bit" in year-over-year comparisons is considered a plus...even when it has been happening for ten years (longer when adjusted for inflation)! And this BS continues to be fed into the public news' streams, quarter-after-quarter, year-after-year as "evidence" that the sport is healthy and thriving, that management is doing a great job; and, that as soon as the local game is rescued by the general public via the alternative gaming subsidies will the game's old luster and sparkle return. Of course, in those venues where the latter is happening, the "ino" part of racino is becoming "ino" and "rac" is still "rac". And, that disproportion applies to capital investment as well as revenue production and, not surprisingly, customer satisfaction.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by rrbauer

Most of the money that has left horse race betting is due to attrition, not competition. (Attrition of bankrolls due to a variety of reasons, including the bankroll-owners demise.) The competition factor comes into play when considering the overall appeal, including the takeout, of horse race betting compared to other forms of betting where ATTRACTING NEW MONEY IS CONCERNED.

Horse race betting has not attracted a pro rata share of the new money that comes into the gambling scene because it is still being managed by the monopoly mentality. The monopoly mentality is so busy trying to preserve the status quo that competing with other forms of gambling for new customers and new money is not on the table for those charged with "managing" the game. The net result is a scramble to survive and avoid shutdown; not prosper and grow. Being "down a little bit" in year-over-year comparisons is considered a plus...even when it has been happening for ten years (longer when adjusted for inflation)! And this BS continues to be fed into the public news' streams, quarter-after-quarter, year-after-year as "evidence" that the sport is healthy and thriving, that management is doing a great job; and, that as soon as the local game is rescued by the general public via the alternative gaming subsidies will the game's old luster and sparkle return. Of course, in those venues where the latter is happening, the "ino" part of racino is becoming "ino" and "rac" is still "rac". And, that disproportion applies to capital investment as well as revenue production and, not surprisingly, customer satisfaction.

Guys like Joe Harper are excited when they lose 6% just because a few more people showed up at the track to watch the concerts. Guys like this aren't leaders in the industry and they should be. CEO's of major racetracks ought to be 'better than' just being happy at losing 6% and convincing themselves that polytrack creates less injuries than regular dirt.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Guys like Joe Harper aren't leaders in the industry and they should be.

Are you serious?

How can the guy who came up with Cougar Day and a $15 margarita not be a leader in the industry?

[andymays]

Originally Posted by InsideThePylons-MW

Are you serious?

How can the guy who came up with Cougar Day and a $15 margarita not be a leader in the industry?

You forgot $8 parking for early bird wagering and the reverse osmosis watering system for the polytrack.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by andymays

You forgot $8 parking for early bird wagering and the reverse osmosis watering system for the polytrack.

They charge you 8 bucks to park in the morning to early bird bet? Cmon, that can't be true.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

They charge you 8 bucks to park in the morning to early bird bet? Cmon, that can't be true.

True! I believe you get a program with the parking fee.