The 15-30 Takeout Solution. Would it work?

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by toddbowker

Assuming the track didn't raise the host fee, the high volume rebate player in most cases would be getting 17% and not the same 10% (at least they would at PTC). Their effective takeout rate would be the same (13%).

the whole idea of raising the rates would be to put more money in the hands of the track and not to enrich the ADWs so I would have to assume that the host fee would be raised.

Originally Posted by toddbowker

If the track raised the host fee, then the high volume player's effective takeout rate would go down. There would be a possibility that their wagering on that track/pool would decrease, or they would try to find another ADW with a better deal.

Better deals would be limited by the percentage earned by the ADW for handling the bet.

Originally Posted by toddbowker

The proliferation of the multi-race bets kills churn. Using a P4 or P5 as a track's low takeout "promotion" bet is a mistake IMO because there is too much money tied up for too long a time. If a track wants to do a promotional rate, it's far better to use a single race bet that is easier to hit (WPS, EX or maybe a TRI), or if you have to, the DD.

These bets were only put in during the time when the industry thought they could compete with the lottery if they had "jackpot" sized payoffs. It was compounded by the carryover Pick(n) bets (I know, my bad, I wrote the rules for the first one in the US in Ohio for Beulah Park). Look at how much money gets tied up for weeks/months/entire meets. That's money that could be churning every day which is instead sitting around doing nothing.

You can't unring the multi-race exotic bell. They are exciting and bring in new customers and also keep exisiting customers playing. If the business model was just to churn money with the single race bets it would make slow moving race betting even slower.

[ronsmac]

If the net takeout is the same then a higher exotic take would help churn more money for some players. Those bets are so hard to hit that a bigger rebate would put more money into circulation.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by toddbowker

Assuming the track didn't raise the host fee, the high volume rebate player in most cases would be getting 17% and not the same 10% (at least they would at PTC). Their effective takeout rate would be the same (13%).

If the track raised the host fee, then the high volume player's effective takeout rate would go down. There would be a possibility that their wagering on that track/pool would decrease, or they would try to find another ADW with a better deal.

The proliferation of the multi-race bets kills churn. Using a P4 or P5 as a track's low takeout "promotion" bet is a mistake IMO because there is too much money tied up for too long a time. If a track wants to do a promotional rate, it's far better to use a single race bet that is easier to hit (WPS, EX or maybe a TRI), or if you have to, the DD.

These bets were only put in during the time when the industry thought they could compete with the lottery if they had "jackpot" sized payoffs. It was compounded by the carryover Pick(n) bets (I know, my bad, I wrote the rules for the first one in the US in Ohio for Beulah Park). Look at how much money gets tied up for weeks/months/entire meets. That's money that could be churning every day which is instead sitting around doing nothing.

Multi race bets certainly can kill churn. No question about it. No sure sure they are a mistake however. When you see a low takeout pick 5 pay ridiculously well, whether you hit it or not, there is certainly a strong motivation to play that pick 5. The low takeout pick 5 is sort of the one opportunity that the typical horseplayer has of beating this game, because the rest of the pools grind him into smithereens. I do think they would be better served if they made it a 20 cent minimum so that the smaller player can have a better chance of bringing it down. It is an incredibly fun bet at the 20 cent level. At the 50 cent level it can be very expensive and often too challenging, especially at tracks with competitive racing.

Regarding the jackpot sized payoffs what is Woodbines excuse for pulling out close to 1 1/2 million dollars on a 20 cent Pentafecta just to give it all out tomorrow to a whole different group of players. I think the Harness is up to about half a million right now. On very rare occasions the harness jackpot gets paid out, but really do not understand why this industry doesn't go with a 12% 20 cent late super high 5. It would be a tremendously fun bet at every track. I would bet it with 3 hands at every track I play.

Obviously they get better numbers with the jackpots, but they have to be a little more responsible with what they are doing. Once the jackpot reaches a certain number, it isn't coming down and does it really matter if they have a half a million dollar carryover of a million carryover? At least if they came up with a plan that once it reaches half a million dollars they will not longer add to the jackpot (and thus pay out the entire non non jackpot pool nightly), from that point on the players will get a low takeout super high 5(or pick 6 or pick 5 or whatever the case) with BIG pools and with a tiny chance of hitting a jackpot. How cool would that be? Would that not prove more popular and drive more handle than a jackpot pool that has virtually no chance of paying out.

I know racing isn't going to give an inch on takeout, but man they need to improve on some of the stuff they are doing at the very least.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

Locking the windows early would ultimately be a positive. Even though, if you placed your bet with 5 minutes to post and betting was closed at 2 minutes to post, your odds could go down dramatically in those 3 minutes, you don't feel like your odds got hammered because your horse broke well and others still had access to the pools 10 seconds into the race. That's the big complaint about late odds moves. They happen during the race. Lock the windows at 2 minutes to post, and even though your horse may get hammered late in the betting, you don't feel like it's getting hammered turning for home.

Prime example. 2nd race at LosAl 9/16/17. Ultimate winner blasts out of the gate and is 8/5 all the way down the backstretch while nursing a 4 length lead. They get to the quarter pole, odds change to even money. Horse cruises home for the win. TOTAL BS from a gambler's standpoint. If that odds change would have happened after betting was closed but before the gates opened, it would be much easier to swallow.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

Prime example. 2nd race at LosAl 9/16/17. Ultimate winner blasts out of the gate and is 8/5 all the way down the backstretch while nursing a 4 length lead. They get to the quarter pole, odds change to even money. Horse cruises home for the win. TOTAL BS from a gambler's standpoint. If that odds change would have happened after betting was closed but before the gates opened, it would be much easier to swallow.

Another side of the coin, but yesterday at Mountaineer there was a horse
7/5 very late in the wagering (how late I can't tell you as I wasn't staring at the tote board, but I believe the track announcer announced him as the favorite as they were loading. Horse breaks slowly and finishes up the track. I look at the tote board and he is 7/2. He did show 7/2 on the screen during the running of the race (watched to replay to see), but don't think he made the screen until almost the far turn.

Even if it was a legitimate big bet cancelled because somebody did not like the way the horse looked or was behaving entering the gate. it sure looks bad. Also could have been a decoy bet. I sure didn't like the horse. But bottom line is stuff like this makes the sport appear to have no credibility.

I agree with UC, the game would be much better served, if they close the betting and posted the final odds prior to starting the race.

[thaskalos]

This "late-late" money is much too "informed" to be just the "random money" that the racing industry tells us it is. If it was really just "random money" from different wagering outlets...then it wouldn't focus on a single horse as much as it does.

This is very suspicious...to say the least.

[cj]

There was a movement in place (after the Pick 6 scandal I think) to close the pools and have them final before the gate opened. It may have been 1 MTP or something like that. You know who killed it? Idiot gamblers who were getting shut out because they couldn't figure it out. Tracks took the easy way out and reverted. Nobody in this game can handle a little pain to do things right. After a few months everyone would have adapted and been fine.

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

This "late-late" money is much too "informed" to be just the "random money" that the racing industry tells us it is. If it was really just "random money" from different wagering outlets...then it wouldn't focus on a single horse as much as it does.

This is very suspicious...to say the least.

I'd bet anything that included in the "late late" money is the whale money being bet at discount rebate shops. That is what is driving the late odds changes IMO. It isn't just poor technology, though that certainly doesn't help matters.

[One Eye]

The industry made a mistake by catering to elite high-volume players. The rest of the non-rebated players (or poorly rebated players) are forced to pay full freight while the chosen few receive significant cuts. To compound matters, the highly-rebated players make the game even tougher since they only have to beat the discounted takeout.

How do you get new players excited about a game where there are no visible winners. Additionally, you have insane 17% takeouts on WPS (plus breakage) and up to 31% takeouts on exotics. Horse racing is a skill game that attracts mathematically-minded skill players. Newer players see what is being offered and they smell a bad deal. The current system is unworkable and the only way to attract players is through significantly reduced takeout or exchange wagering.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by One Eye

The industry made a mistake by catering to elite high-volume players. The rest of the non-rebated players (or poorly rebated players) are forced to pay full freight while the chosen few receive significant cuts. To compound matters, the highly-rebated players make the game even tougher since they only have to beat the discounted takeout.

How do you get new players excited about a game where there are no visible winners. Additionally, you have insane 17% takeouts on WPS (plus breakage) and up to 31% takeouts on exotics. Horse racing is a skill game that attracts mathematically-minded skill players. Newer players see what is being offered and they smell a bad deal. The current system is unworkable and the only way to attract players is through significantly reduced takeout or exchange wagering.

What smart business doesn't cater to its best customers?

No one is "forced to pay full freight". You can either say the cost is too high and not bet or increase your bets so that you can be one of the chosen few.

[cj]

Originally Posted by AndyC

What smart business doesn't cater to its best customers?

No one is "forced to pay full freight". You can either say the cost is too high and not bet or increase your bets so that you can be one of the chosen few.

It is a little trickier than that. In other businesses, people aren't competing against each other.

And plenty of people are choosing not to bet. Unfortunately, the industry response is generally more price increases and / or more gimmick bets that hurt churn.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by cj

It is a little trickier than that. In other businesses, people aren't competing against each other.

And plenty of people are choosing not to bet. Unfortunately, the industry response is generally more price increases and / or more gimmick bets that hurt churn.

In a supply and demand situation we are always competing against each other. As bettors, the only thing we control is demand. The industry believes (rightly or wrongly) that there is an inelastic demand for betting on horses. Until that reality or perception changes look for more of the same. A one month boycott of Keeneland will only cement the perception further. Yes the bettors don't want to pay more but they will be back in a month.

[One Eye]

Originally Posted by AndyC

What smart business doesn't cater to its best customers?

No one is "forced to pay full freight". You can either say the cost is too high and not bet or increase your bets so that you can be one of the chosen few.

Greetings,

You are forced to pay full freight, depending on what state you live in and your level of handle, if you decide to play. What makes this particularly obnoxious is that horse racing is a paramutuel game and the industry lacks transparency. Expose these hidden rebate deals to the public and let us assess if they are problematic. Clearly, many people believe they damage the integrity of the game and impart a higher takeout on all the other players (see Oaklawn).

Imagine a poker game where the dealer takes differing amounts of rake based on what state you live in or how frequently you visit the room. Additionally, imagine this poker room allows some players to bring computers to the table, provided they place enough bets. Next, imagine the casino allows certain players to move around from table to table while a game is in progress. This would antagonize other players, and rightly so! Similarly, legal sports books do not offer cash rebates or change the morning lines based on who is betting.

Of course, you ultimately have do have a choice. You are only forced to pay full freight if you choose to participate. I have chosen to radically reduce my play and mostly pay the pick 5 (or win bets where the takeout hovers around 15%). My handle has dropped 85% since 2014 (when I had deep rebates given my handle and residency). Most horseplayers I talk to have given up on the game because they feel any attempt to beat the game is a fool's errand.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by AndyC

In a supply and demand situation we are always competing against each other. As bettors, the only thing we control is demand. The industry believes (rightly or wrongly) that there is an inelastic demand for betting on horses. Until that reality or perception changes look for more of the same. A one month boycott of Keeneland will only cement the perception further. Yes the bettors don't want to pay more but they will be back in a month.

Boycotting Keeneland is as much about a deterrent to others as it it Keeneland. With no pushback Del Mar will likely raise WPS take. We should have boycotted Ca months ago and Keeneland may have thought twice.

[cj]

Originally Posted by AndyC

In a supply and demand situation we are always competing against each other. As bettors, the only thing we control is demand. The industry believes (rightly or wrongly) that there is an inelastic demand for betting on horses. Until that reality or perception changes look for more of the same. A one month boycott of Keeneland will only cement the perception further. Yes the bettors don't want to pay more but they will be back in a month.

That is my point though. They aren't coming back. They aren't leaving because of boycotts. They just stop betting and vanish into the night, finding better things to waste money on. Check handle a dozen years ago versus today. With inflation, it is about half that now.