Players continue to walk away from the game.

[PalaceOfFortLarned]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I'm really talking out of my behind here, so take this with the grain of salt it deserves.

But I suspect that the sweet spot that horse racing used to occupy, and doesn't anymore, is that it attracted both a fair number of people who were intellectually attracted to the game AND a lot of people who just wanted to mindlessly gamble.

Nitro always likes to talk about how great Hong Kong racing is, but having been to the track there, I can tell you that one big thing you notice is that there are still tons of the latter category of players. And while I think the way a lot of PA types might look at that is "great, the pools are less educated", it's not JUST that. It's also that there are far more people out there who want to engage in mindless gambling than people who really want to dive into intellectually analyzing the game. This is true with poker- the poker economy revolves around the fish and the whales, and NOT merely because they inject dead money into the pools but because there are simply a greater number of people who just want to splash some chips around than who want to really study math and psychology. It's true in casinos- you'll find more people at the slot machines and playing 6-5 blackjack on the Vegas strip than you will find in the poker room or the race and sports book.

The great loss that horse racing has faced is the loss of those casual players. Santa Anita used to draw 40,000 every weekend, and these folks were not all carefully studying their racing form. I remember the first time I ever went to Gulfstream Park, back in 1989, and seeing the retirees out there sitting behind the grandstand, getting some sun, and playing the ponies.

And of course, how many Americans have filled out an NCAA bracket this week, and how many of them have learned anything about the teams they are betting on.

It's very hard to market your gambling game when the only people interested in it are intellectuals. Even now, the biggest horse racing events, especially the Kentucky Derby, still attract casual players who just want to throw 20 bucks on a 15 to 1 shot with a cute name while wearing a fashionable hat.

I've taken many a good friend to the race track.

An hour in, and 3 races go by, and I haven't given them a winner and they get easily restless and bored. I try to explain even the simplest of handicapping, but they aren't interested in the least.

However, those same good friends will lay $100 a game on any football or basketball game without an ounce of effort. It is simple. It is easy. Reminds me of Trig in high school. A class of 235 people, and 23 of us took Trig. Less than 1/3rd actually passed without the curve.

[Track Phantom]

I've brought over 100 non-horse racing players to the track in my life. Not one that I know of turned into a regular player. There is a phenomenon here and it's all of us. Those of us on this thread, that play the game daily, diligently and can recall mid-level claiming races at Belmont from the 1990's.

The thing I would do if I was in charge and looking to expand my customer base is hire a firm the specializes in personality surveys and have them compile detailed personality data on us hard core players. I guarantee there are similarities in all of us that are too hidden to really understand. That is the key to unlock where this specialized interest group exists. I really don't think the powers that be understand the reason why people like me stay in the game for 30 years and the 100 people I exposed the game to had no interest. I think it's much more likely that hard core players are attracted to strategy like Chess than they are to sports betting but the simple-minded approach is to go after the sports betting audience. That might be futile as the very thing that attracts people to sports betting could be the very thing that turns them away from horse racing (for example, gaps of time between action).

There is a reason all of us have stayed with horse racing for many years especially considering the myriad of things that would drive the average person away. I'm not smart enough to know the underlying reasons. My belief is that until those looking to expand the customer base really understands those inherit traits, they won't be marketing their product to the right audience. They need to forget about casting a wide net to catch 3 fish. They need to apply precision marketing to the most likely audience that would fall in love with the nuances of horse racing the way we did. I assume there are thousands of those people in this country that just haven't been exposed to the game.

[castaway01]

I think the last two posts before mine were well-reasoned and had good insight, but doesn't it eventually come back around to the problem of making the game more appealing financially by lowering takeout or through rebates or SOMETHING? I don't think it's simply "intellectuals like horse racing" but more "casual fans could only legally gamble in certain ways 50 years ago, and now they've got dozens of better options than horse racing". So we discuss if that is even fixable, we're back to the 25% takeout vs. casino takeout, or sports betting takeout, etc.

As a side issue, I think the nonfan view of horse racing (if they think about it at all) is "bunch of degenerates sit around screaming at horses every half hour". However, when I used to go to live racing, for most people I knew it was "watch too many simulcast tracks at once and have lots of bets going". I think (for better or worse) that if you could get people to that point there would be plenty of action. For most people, the game doesn't seem winnable/learnable enough to get to that level, so they don't bother. That's if they even get in the door in the first place.

[VeryOldMan]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

But I suspect that the sweet spot that horse racing used to occupy, and doesn't anymore, is that it attracted both a fair number of people who were intellectually attracted to the game AND a lot of people who just wanted to mindlessly gamble.

This. Horse racing was the only legalized form of gambling before state lotteries existed. And the sport hasn't quite evolved. Many of us still enjoy it, but we're pushing the rope uphill.

[PalaceOfFortLarned]

Originally Posted by castaway01

I think the last two posts before mine were well-reasoned and had good insight, but doesn't it eventually come back around to the problem of making the game more appealing financially by lowering takeout or through rebates or SOMETHING? I don't think it's simply "intellectuals like horse racing" but more "casual fans could only legally gamble in certain ways 50 years ago, and now they've got dozens of better options than horse racing". So we discuss if that is even fixable, we're back to the 25% takeout vs. casino takeout, or sports betting takeout, etc.

As a side issue, I think the nonfan view of horse racing (if they think about it at all) is "bunch of degenerates sit around screaming at horses every half hour". However, when I used to go to live racing, for most people I knew it was "watch too many simulcast tracks at once and have lots of bets going". I think (for better or worse) that if you could get people to that point there would be plenty of action. For most people, the game doesn't seem winnable/learnable enough to get to that level, so they don't bother. That's if they even get in the door in the first place.

Takeout has nothing to do with it.

My 12/1 to 20/1 horses are now 5/1 to 6/1. My bread and butter 9/2 to 6/1 are now 9/5 to 5/2.

I have to be twice as good as I was 20 years ago. Smaller fields certainly hurt, along with conglomerate wagering, but general public information that everybody has is most hurtful. The amount of information and wagering services available for free is crazy.

Joe Public is betting the same horse I am at 5/2, when it should be 5/1.

It is harder. Much harder, than it has ever been to make a profit.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

Remember that fairs have significantly higher takeout than Santa Anita, Del Mar, Golden Gate, and Los Al

There’s a potential irony in that.

The higher the take, theoretically the tougher the game is to beat. But if all the sharp players stay away because the take is higher, the only people betting are the fish. So there can be more inefficiencies there than at some low take track that all the whales are playing.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

FWIW, I LOVE mule racing!

Me too.

I have trip notes on every mule race for about the last 10 years and created my own time charts because the ones that are used to classify them are so wrong. It’s comical.

The pools are small, but you can find some glaring mistakes and inefficiencies between pools. I’ve been going through withdrawals since the pandemic.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

There’s a potential irony in that.

The higher the take, theoretically the tougher the game is to beat. But if all the sharp players stay away because the take is higher, the only people betting are the fish. So there can be more inefficiencies there than at some low take track that all the whales are playing.

A similar thing is true in poker. Bad beat jackpot games are raked higher. But fish love jackpots. So a jackpot game with a higher rake can nonetheless be more beatable.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

A similar thing is true in poker. Bad beat jackpot games are raked higher. But fish love jackpots. So a jackpot game with a higher rake can nonetheless be more beatable.

Someone can probably come up with a good algorithm to test each track.

I sort of do it with trial and error.

[Light]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

I've brought over 100 non-horse racing players to the track in my life. Not one that I know of turned into a regular player...... I'm not smart enough to know the underlying reasons.

The reason is simple. Not making money. If I brought someone new to the track and I made a grand, you bet they would be interested. They'd be "can you teach me how to make a grand in one day like you?". That's the bottom line. If you start giving excuses why you lost, nobody's interested.

[delfman]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

A similar thing is true in poker. Bad beat jackpot games are raked higher. But fish love jackpots. So a jackpot game with a higher rake can nonetheless be more beatable.

reading this makes me believe you have not played very much raked poker.
you are saying that good poker players will not play games with a bad beat jackpot? WRONG
and even if what you say has any truth to it, you are still wrong.
I'm pretty sure that most poker players who consider themselves good, would rather play against other good players.(myself included)(I do like to play against drunk people though.) I do not want to play against rich "fish" who are going to chase nearly every bet to the river, in a limit game.

a limit game, against primarily "fish" is in no way "more beatable"
even
same goes for low stakes no limit games.
chasers with deep pockets are not good to play against.
so no the game isn't more beatable!

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by delfman

reading this makes me believe you have not played very much raked poker.
you are saying that good poker players will not play games with a bad beat jackpot? WRONG
and even if what you say has any truth to it, you are still wrong.
I'm pretty sure that most poker players who consider themselves good, would rather play against other good players.(myself included)(I do like to play against drunk people though.) I do not want to play against rich "fish" who are going to chase nearly every bet to the river, in a limit game.

a limit game, against primarily "fish" is in no way "more beatable"
even
same goes for low stakes no limit games.
chasers with deep pockets are not good to play against.
so no the game isn't more beatable!

This is kind of off topic, but my comment was about what poker games bad players want to play in. I made no statement about good players. A lot of bad players like jackpots, which can mean that a game with a higher rake and a jackpot can actually be more +EV to play in than a game with a lower rake and no jackpot.

As for the rest of your comment, I think I still have my databases from online play, and I can assure you that you absolutely want to play in games where people make bad calls to the river and sometimes suck out on you. Every time a fish puts money into the pot when your hand is a favorite to win, you are gaining expected value.

[delfman]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

This is kind of off topic, but my comment was about what poker games bad players want to play in. I made no statement about good players. A lot of bad players like jackpots, which can mean that a game with a higher rake and a jackpot can actually be more +EV to play in than a game with a lower rake and no jackpot.

As for the rest of your comment, I think I still have my databases from online play, and I can assure you that you absolutely want to play in games where people make bad calls to the river and sometimes suck out on you. Every time a fish puts money into the pot when your hand is a favorite to win, you are gaining expected value.

yes, I got the jist of your comment, which was, that there is value in playing games with a bad beat jackpot. you mention online poker, and I suppose that is where you are coming from. online poker and live poker are two completely different things. I do not think there is such a thing as a live game that doesn't have some sort of jackpot. Maybe at card rooms. Not at casinos.
IMO the term "fish" with regards to live poker, does not exist anymore.
there may be players who play with scared $ or are playing a limit that they aren't comfortable with.
If "fish" still exist in live poker, then they are rich drunk people who are expecting to lose.
and I am talking about Texas Hold-em(which IMO is one of the worst poker games to be playing. But, alas it is usually the only game being played.
It plays out like a slot machine 80% of the time. It's all position and hoping your hole cards match with the flop.
Now, 7 card stud is a true poker game. Or many others besides Texas Hold-em.



sry to hijack the thread, which is pretty played out anyways. and I didn't introduce the poker theme to it anyways.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by delfman

online poker and live poker are two completely different things.

Post-2011, I've played almost exclusively live, but I have to tell you, this is something live players believe because they don't have databases of their live play. In fact, live and online poker are fundamentally very similar. To be clear, tells are obviously significant in live poker in a way they aren't online. But the most important thing in poker is math, not tells, and the math works out EXACTLY the same in online poker. Indeed, two big reasons there are so many losing live players who ought to know better are (1) live players don't keep records, whereas in online play your results are inescapable; and (2) lots of live players seem to think the rules of math get suspended whenever they want to make a bad play because of some sort of unsupportable "read" (but really because they want to make a bad play).

I do not think there is such a thing as a live game that doesn't have some sort of jackpot. Maybe at card rooms. Not at casinos.

Ever been to the Bellagio? They spread tons of different limit and no limit games with no jackpots.

IMO the term "fish" with regards to live poker, does not exist anymore.

Come to Los Angeles and go to a card room. Maybe it's because we are close to the ocean, but we have plenty of fish.

I am talking about Texas Hold-em(which IMO is one of the worst poker games to be playing. But, alas it is usually the only game being played.

That's weird, because I just played a juicy game of Pot Limit Omaha last week, and the two other cardrooms I go to spread "Big O" and a mixed stud/hold-em game, respectively.

It plays out like a slot machine 80% of the time. It's all position and hoping your hole cards match with the flop.

Find me a slot machine that you can beat, long term, with rigorously mathematical analysis.

[delfman]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Post-2011, I've played almost exclusively live, but I have to tell you, this is something live players believe because they don't have databases of their live play. In fact, live and online poker are fundamentally very similar. To be clear, tells are obviously significant in live poker in a way they aren't online. But the most important thing in poker is math, not tells, and the math works out EXACTLY the same in online poker. Indeed, two big reasons there are so many losing live players who ought to know better are (1) live players don't keep records, whereas in online play your results are inescapable; and (2) lots of live players seem to think the rules of math get suspended whenever they want to make a bad play because of some sort of unsupportable "read" (but really because they want to make a bad play).



Ever been to the Bellagio? They spread tons of different limit and no limit games with no jackpots.



Come to Los Angeles and go to a card room. Maybe it's because we are close to the ocean, but we have plenty of fish.



That's weird, because I just played a juicy game of Pot Limit Omaha last week, and the two other cardrooms I go to spread "Big O" and a mixed stud/hold-em game, respectively.



Find me a slot machine that you can beat, long term, with rigorously mathematical analysis.

you do make some good points. I haven't been to the bellagio since 2007. And I will never go back. they discriminate based on your appearance. Fuck them. if your a new face to them and your not wearing a 5,000$ suit then they ignore you. plenty of other places to play in Vegas. I'm on the east coast, but I haven't played live poker since Covid.
Yes, concerning "fish". ...It's an outdated term. It was more relevant in the early 2000's with the Moneymaker Hold-em poker boom. The saying goes, if your at a table and can not spot the fish or fishes, then it is you. LOL
your either a good card player or a bad one. these days bad poker players either rarely play anymore or when they do it is not cash games anyways. So , yes I guess you will still find fish at the lowest limit sit and go tournaments. Where they will not enter a pot without a pair of 10's or better in the hole.
Of course math is a HUGE part of poker, BUT it is more so when it comes to online poker.
Hopefully the casino that just opened here in York, PA will eventually open a poker room. I'd be there every Friday and Saturday night playing the highest limit games they ran.