How much is it worth to NOT have robotic wagerers in the pools?

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

Owners who want to pay crazy amounts for yearlings shouldn't expect Customer subsidized purse welfare.

What does that even mean?

All businesses are "subsidized" by customers.

In the case of racing, the owners are also customers, providing the asset which produces the product, and the handicappers then bet on the production.

You need each other, so quit your grousing.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

What does that even mean?

All businesses are "subsidized" by customers.

In the case of racing, the owners are also customers, providing the asset which produces the product, and the handicappers then bet on the production.

You need each other, so quit your grousing.

Yeah...but who needs the other more? Can the owners look for "another hobby" as readily as the handicappers can?

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yeah...but who needs the other more? Can the owners look for "another hobby" as readily as the handicappers can?

Is this a serious question? Do you want everyone to whip out their rulers next?

Owners dont make a profit as a whole, and the ones that do have set themselves up to cash out at the auctions. So the indebtedness you're looking for probably shouldn't be sought. The two entities who financially make the sport possible are the handicappers and the owners. You need each other equally, as the sport would cease to exist without the other.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Is this a serious question? Do you want everyone to whip out their rulers next?

Owners dont make a profit as a whole, and the ones that do have set themselves up to cash out at the auctions. So the indebtedness you're looking for probably shouldn't be sought. The two entities who financially make the sport possible are the handicappers and the owners. You need each other equally, as the sport would cease to exist without the other.

It's YOU that I don't know if I should take seriously. Not too long ago, when we were talking here about the handicappers having no "voice" in this game...I suggested that the horseplayers were "partners" with the owners in this game...because we relied on one-another in order for this game to succeed. But you MOCKED my comment by telling me that horseracing is a "business", and that the owners are the "businessmen"...whereas the horseplayers are only the CUSTOMERS. "And if the customer doesn't like the product...then he is free to take his money elsewhere", you said..."but in no way can he be considered a PARTNER in this venture". And here you are telling me that the horseplayers and the owners "need each other equally".

If the racetrack was a "business" of a DIFFERENT sort, like, say, a GROCERY store...would you continue to assert that the owners and the customers "need each other EQUALLY"? What owner of any other business suggests that he and his customers "need each other EQUALLY"?

[AltonKelsey]

US Racing

2016 Handle $10.735 billion

2016 Purses $1.083 billion


Approx takeout at 20% = 2.15 Billion


So horseplayers contributed that 2.15 Billion out of their pockets . Approx 1/2 of that was claimed by owners via purses.

The question is , how much do OWNERS spend per year in the US, for purchase and upkeep.

[MONEY]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

US Racing

2016 Handle $10.735 billion

2016 Purses $1.083 billion


Approx takeout at 20% = 2.15 Billion


So horseplayers contributed that 2.15 Billion out of their pockets . Approx 1/2 of that was claimed by owners via purses.

The question is , how much do OWNERS spend per year in the US, for purchase and upkeep.

I know an owner/trainer here in Texas, and he told me that for each picture that he takes in the winners circle, he spends close to $50,000.

[o_crunk]

The sequence went 12 x 10 x 8 x 10 x 11.

It costs around $52K to buy the wager at the minimum.

The parlay was around $116K.

Average pool for P5 at OP since the wager began last year is $49K. Pool for day in question was $50K.

Consider the above scenario before jumping in wildly with claims that it paid 4 of 5 b/c the teams were not involved.

People are conflating "CRW teams" with "sharp" or "rebate". There are too many official industry personalities - touts, journos, etc - who have created this boogey man of the CRW team literally sucking money from the pools and it's very far from the truth. And anyway...what information would a CRW team have about this P5 via tote data? There is no advantage.

If you want to make a case that the rebated player is increasing the takeout for all, that's fine. But that player or team is puttting up massive capital through betting and creating their own tools. Is it fair? IDK.

But in this particular instance...this particular wager. It paid well and it had nothing to do with whether the teams were involved or not.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

What does that even mean?

All businesses are "subsidized" by customers.

In the case of racing, the owners are also customers, providing the asset which produces the product, and the handicappers then bet on the production.

You need each other, so quit your grousing.

Haven't you heard? We never quit.

My comments are directed at the TOC in Ca. and SB1072 and I should have specified that

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by o_crunk

The sequence went 12 x 10 x 8 x 10 x 11.

It costs around $52K to buy the wager at the minimum.

The parlay was around $116K.

Average pool for P5 at OP since the wager began last year is $49K. Pool for day in question was $50K.

Consider the above scenario before jumping in wildly with claims that it paid 4 of 5 b/c the teams were not involved.

People are conflating "CRW teams" with "sharp" or "rebate". There are too many official industry personalities - touts, journos, etc - who have created this boogey man of the CRW team literally sucking money from the pools and it's very far from the truth. And anyway...what information would a CRW team have about this P5 via tote data? There is no advantage.

If you want to make a case that the rebated player is increasing the takeout for all, that's fine. But that player or team is puttting up massive capital through betting and creating their own tools. Is it fair? IDK.

But in this particular instance...this particular wager. It paid well and it had nothing to do with whether the teams were involved or not.

You know I respect your opinions greatly because you know the numbers better than the Industry does. In this case since the pool was only 50K I'd imagine it wouldn't be something that the biggest players would jump into. Maybe I'm wrong but it feels like there is more uninformed money in the pools. Never would have happened in Ca with those numbers IMO.

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by Lafecs

Efficient odds at retail takeout makes the game next to impossible to beat in the long-run. CRWs are NOT good for the retail bettor, and it's not even debatable. They ARE good for the tracks however, who could care less whether you get value on your wager or not.

The real issue is that the computer groups are getting access to the tote system and are basically setting the odds to whatever they want to at the last second-So the true odds only become apparent AFTER the gates close.

I my opinion, Betfair and fixed odds betting would at least neutralize the playing field a little bit, so that the odds you are looking at in real time are at least TRUE odds.

Absolutely correct betfair odds are true odds. A lot of the time. A horse is sitting pm at 25s and it 50s or more on bf.

Fixed odds betting would be a godsend to the average American player.

I know exactly to the penny what I am to win Before the bet is placed.

Blind bets into the pm pools, that’s yesterdays betting.

The exchange is today’s betting.

Allan

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It's YOU that I don't know if I should take seriously. Not too long ago, when we were talking here about the handicappers having no "voice" in this game...I suggested that the horseplayers were "partners" with the owners in this game...because we relied on one-another in order for this game to succeed. But you MOCKED my comment by telling me that horseracing is a "business", and that the owners are the "businessmen"...whereas the horseplayers are only the CUSTOMERS. "And if the customer doesn't like the product...then he is free to take his money elsewhere", you said..."but in no way can he be considered a PARTNER in this venture". And here you are telling me that the horseplayers and the owners "need each other equally".

If the racetrack was a "business" of a DIFFERENT sort, like, say, a GROCERY store...would you continue to assert that the owners and the customers "need each other EQUALLY"? What owner of any other business suggests that he and his customers "need each other EQUALLY"?

Of course a business needs customers. That in no way makes them a partner. You own no part of any of the business.

[lamboguy]

i have not heard that much about "the teams" betting into exchange wagering. they might but from what i see there isn't that much in matches in the exchange s. and if they did bet into the exchanges it wouldn't make any difference to me.

for that reason alone, and the fact that i don't bet that much any longer, i have switched positions and am now in favor of exchange wagering as long as i don't get killed with the juice i pay.

[o_crunk]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

You know I respect your opinions greatly because you know the numbers better than the Industry does. In this case since the pool was only 50K I'd imagine it wouldn't be something that the biggest players would jump into. Maybe I'm wrong but it feels like there is more uninformed money in the pools. Never would have happened in Ca with those numbers IMO.

It's more than just the pool size. It's also the combinations.

You mention SoCal. Well, sans BC, there was only *one* pick5 sequence last year at DMR and SA where there were as many combinations as this sequence at OP on Sunday.

One! Out of 200 plus race days.

The average number of runners in a SoCal pick 5 sequence is 36. That combined with an average pool size that is literally 10x that of OP.

Is it dumb money at OP? I don't think, sans massive big TC and BC days, there is "dumb" money left in racing. OP is just not that popular a signal, which is strange because they have great field size and a single surface which is conducive to modeling. OP is closer to GG at the per betting interest level than it is to say TAM or even MTH. I don't think that signals "dumb" money so much as it signals no money or more opportunity for less efficient pools. I sure wish it was offered on exchange b/c contrarian views are rewarded in instances where field size is high.

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

Absolutely correct betfair odds are true odds. A lot of the time. A horse is sitting pm at 25s and it 50s or more on bf.

Fixed odds betting would be a godsend to the average American player.

I know exactly to the penny what I am to win Before the bet is placed.

Blind bets into the pm pools, that’s yesterdays betting.

The exchange is today’s betting.

Allan

For instance yesterday at Sunland Park I liked the chalkie horse in the 7th.

Heloha honey. paid 5.60 for 2 dollars betMy average odds when betting this horse was 7.56 for every two dollars bet.

Even after the 12% commission charged by betfair. I came out way ahead.

For a horseplayer every cent counts as I have learned on my two years on the exchange.


Allan

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

Owners who want to pay crazy amounts for yearlings shouldn't expect Customer subsidized purse welfare.

You can keep taking this further and further back.

It costs a ton of money to have a breeding operation. If owners aren't willing to pay the prices needed to keep breeders afloat, breeder's will stop breeding thoroughbreds to race.

The economics of the industry are poor and it's like that for virtually everyone.

How many breeder's are making good money based on their investment?

How many owners are making good money based on their investment?

How many jockeys and trainers are making a good living?

How many tracks are whole without casino subsidies?

How many horse players have a large enough edge to make all the work they put into game worthwhile? How many have any edge at all?

I'm going to guess that "not too many" covers most of the answers. Too many people are fighting over a small and potentially shrinking pie. We can either grow the pie better or consolidate the industry.