crw wagering

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

The rebate money comes from the profits of the rebate house, that money is either going all to the rebate house or half to the rebate house and half to the bettors, but either way, the rebate shops private transaction with its customers have nothing to do with your own personal bottom line. An 8.20 winner still pays 8.20 for you. The 8.20 is figured out at the host tracks advertised takeout rate, it's a rate that you know before you make a bet, they don't change the rate after the race is over.

I get your point, SRU, and I think part of the problem here is that a player's handicapping skills vary much more from track to track versus the impact of rebates.

But I think another part of the problem is that you're arguing in a vacuum, and not looking at the big picture. Instead of being focused on my payout is $8.20, you need to ask the question why did my payout drop to $7.80 at CRW Park? Or, better yet, ask the question, how many hobby horseplayers prefer SRU Downs to CRW Park?

BTW - in my example, I forgot to take into account that as CEO of SRU Downs, you would actually have a much higher strike rate, but of course would have to use beards to run all your bets. We wouldn't to have the public relations nightmare of a conflict of interest, eh?

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by Maximillion

I agree with Dave that the smaller tracks are more difficult to beat.
I think its a combination of the whales being a higher percentage of the pools there...and imo its harder to sustain any kind of profit on the 5k and lower open claiming races these tracks are filled with.

It could be higher whale participation, or it could be that the local connection's wagers represent a higher percentage in the pools than at the larger venues. It could also be that handicapping a minor track versus a major one is vastly different.

It sure would be nice if we had access to some of the details around wagers, entities betting, rebates, signal fees and the like. It's a complex model and flow of funds.

[no breathalyzer]

Originally Posted by green80

Alright, who starts the next thread, most beatable tracks?

The most beatable track is the one you study the hardest .. as long as the pools are not a complete joke.

[no breathalyzer]

They can offer the fattest rebate to me to bet cali tracks yet i probably would pass cause i admit overall i don't know shit about racing out west . Rebate does me no good if i'm leaking my roll all over the place.

Track A offers me 8% rebate.. don't know shit about and consistently lose
or
Track B offers me 4% rebate.. i follow.. cash tickets and make profit

Which track do you think i choice?

[no breathalyzer]

“We simply refuse to allow them into our pools,” Bobby Geiger, Oaklawn’s director of wagering and simulcast, said in an Email. He said Oaklawn realized more than 10 years ago that “these parasites would kill the grandstand player and ultimately the wagering component of the sport, so we eliminated them from our distribution portfolio. “They’ve tried to sneak into our pools on multiple occasions … but we constantly monitor our pools for the activity,” he said. “WE ALWAYS CATCH THEM.

Sure fooled me... Do they let them only bet certain races or something?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

I get your point, SRU, and I think part of the problem here is that a player's handicapping skills vary much more from track to track versus the impact of rebates.

But I think another part of the problem is that you're arguing in a vacuum, and not looking at the big picture. Instead of being focused on my payout is $8.20, you need to ask the question why did my payout drop to $7.80 at CRW Park? Or, better yet, ask the question, how many hobby horseplayers prefer SRU Downs to CRW Park?

BTW - in my example, I forgot to take into account that as CEO of SRU Downs, you would actually have a much higher strike rate, but of course would have to use beards to run all your bets. We wouldn't to have the public relations nightmare of a conflict of interest, eh?

But if your payout is 7.80 that's due to the intelligence of the player, not the rebate. Also, if one horse is 'supposed to' pay 8.20 and gets bet down to 7.80, the other runners go up in price, some other horse gains more value.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

But if your payout is 7.80 that's due to the intelligence of the player, not the rebate. Also, if one horse is 'supposed to' pay 8.20 and gets bet down to 7.80, the other runners go up in price, some other horse gains more value.

<double sigh> SRU, the horse pays $7.80 because the 40 cents is skimmed to pay the whales the rebates. But if you want to look at that way, you can also make the argument the payoff reflects the "intelligence" of the pool, which has whales.

And aren't you the one advocating two pools, one with whales and one without? Or rather, one allowing CRW and one that doesn't?

CRW pool - $7.80
non-CRW pool - $8.20

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

<double sigh> SRU, the horse pays $7.80 because the 40 cents is skimmed to pay the whales the rebates. But if you want to look at that way, you can also make the argument the payoff reflects the "intelligence" of the pool, which has whales.

And aren't you the one advocating two pools, one with whales and one without? Or rather, one allowing CRW and one that doesn't?

CRW pool - $7.80
non-CRW pool - $8.20

No, the horse pays $7.80 because he was bet down to that. Nothing was "skimmed" to cause that drop. The money bet into the pools, on all horses, determines the payouts. You never know whether the supposed $8.20 payout will actually be $7.80 or $8.60 or $8.20 or something else, and that is true whether CRWs are involved or not.