New Bet?

[BetHorses!]

Agree about bringing back twin tri

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by the little guy

I'm curious, anyone have any thoughts on a potential new bet....a Pick-3 exacta? Offered on the last three races, you would have to hit three straight exactas. It could be a carryover bet, where 75% of the pool carries if nobody hits it, with a 10 cent minimum.

As an example, if you wanted to play three straight 3-horse boxes, it would be 216 combinations ( 6 x 6 x 6 ) or $21.60 for a dime.

I think that we have enough bets and what we do not need anything new. The
innovation will certainly not come from adding new gimmics as we have already
discussed in many threads so far.

As far as the specific bet described here, I think that is one of the worst
anyone can think about. It is so difficult that it will favor carryovers,
something that I believe is not good or even fair for the bettor. Take for
example the case that I have already hit the two first legs of this bet which
each one payed over $400 and I miss the third one having the only three live
tickets in this pool, why I am not entitled to the whole pool ? I really see no
reason...

If we really think we need some new type of a bet, I would say that I would
like to see something more balanced and favor for the bettor. Such a bet might
be the twin (or double) Quinella, which consists of two consecutive Quinella,
assuming that I will not have to specify my second leg picks in advance, but
while the second leg is still open. This is a great bet that can lead to huge
payouts (I have won a 25,000 - 1 such a bet decades ago while still betting in
Greece) but still is not so extreme as to have frequent (or any) carryovers.

More specifically, having the ability to specify your picks in a race by race
progression, instead of pre-selecting them all in the first race should be a
great improvement to American betting, as it will allow more information to be
available to the bettor, increasing his confidence to the bet.

Besides this, I repeat that we already have enough types of bets and do not need
to add any more. What the game really needs, are way more radical and drastic changes,
like fixed odds, betting exchanges and lower take outs just to name a few...

[ArlJim78]

I like the concept of a Pick3 exacta with a 10cent minimum. I'd play it.

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by ManU918

Add last place wagering.

Wouldn't it be too suspicious? Puts the possibility of stiff jobs much more in the forefront.

I'd consider a Pic 3-exacta. Or a double-exacta. Sounds so simple. Probably would get pretty good handle. Also a new way to hit two out of three.

[Tom]

Hit three exactas?
I call that 2012.

Seems to me to be getting too gimmicky, more lottery than racing, but if people buy into it, nothing else matters.

[Jeff P]

IMHO, we already have enough bets on the wagering menu. Instead of some new gimmick bet, why not make the current bets more attractive?

Based on the industry's own paid for economic studies we know the following:

1. There is an elastic relationship between takeout rates and handle.

2. A similar elastic relationship exists between field size and handle. (Although the studies themselves say that elasticity between takeout and handle is stronger than the elasticity between field size and handle.)

3. Recent studies also say that in the next few years the number of available horses of racing age is about to take a significant downturn.

Based on what we know from the paid for studies - What about something like this?:

Takeout Rates tied to Field Size
      
Field                    
 Size       WPS    EXOTIC
-----   -------   -------
    2     4.500     5.203
-----   -------   -------
    3     5.625     6.500
-----   -------   -------
    4     6.750     7.805
-----   -------   -------
    5     7.875     9.106
-----   -------   -------
    6     9.000    10.406
-----   -------   -------
    7   10.1250    11.707
-----   -------   -------
    8   11.2500    13.008
-----   -------   -------
    9   12.3750    14.309
-----   -------   -------
   10   13.5000    15.609
-----   -------   -------
   11   14.6250    16.910
-----   -------   -------
   12   15.7500    18.211
-----   -------   -------
   13   16.8750    19.512
-----   -------   -------
   14+  18.0000    20.813

In the above table, in the WPS column, starting with a field of just 2 runners I used a 4.5% takeout rate. FYI, that's the same "vig" a sports bettor faces when betting an NFL game. If you want to spark new interest in horse racing from the public at large I contend that betting a match race has to be on a level playing field takeout-wise with betting an NFL game.

Staying with the WPS column, each time field size is increased by 1 the takeout rate is increased by 1.1250 percent (up to a max takeout rate of 18.00 percent at 14 runners.)

What ends up happening (if you look at the rates in the WPS column closely) is that smaller fields become more attractive from a betting standpoint than they are at present takeout levels.

What also ends up happening in the WPS column is that once field size reaches 7 to 8 runners, the takeout rate becomes approximately the same effective takeout rate currently offered to serious bettors after a rebate is factored in.

The rates in the Exotics column were arrived at in the following manner:

I took NYRA's takeout rate for Exactas (18.50 percent) and divided that by NYRA's takeout rate for WPS (16.00 percent) which gave me the ratio of Exacta to WPS (1.15625) on the NYRA wagering menu. From there, I simply took the takeout rate from the WPS column and multiplied by 1.15625 to arrive at the Exotics takeout rate for each possible field size. (Note that I used NYRA's numbers as the basis for my rate schedule because NYRA handles more money than any other racing jurisdiction. Also note that the numbers in the above chart have been rounded off to 3 decimal places for ease of display.)

I'm a serious horse bettor. Our current takeout rates (and breakage) have me passing LOTS of smaller fields. As field sizes continue to shrink I find myself passing more and more races. (I have a hard time imagining I'm the only one.)

Obviously, something like the above would make smaller fields more attractive to me. (Again, I have a hard time imagining I'm the only one.)

According to The Jockey Club website, North American thoroughbred handle peaked in 2003 at $15.9 billion and has been falling each year since. Last year's number was $11.5 billion.

Unless we change the course we're on we can expect more of the same.

I contend the problem isn't that we need some new gimmick bet. Instead, maybe the time has come to address the reasons why our current bets are causing total customer spend on the thoroughbred racing product to shrink at the rate of minus 4 percent each year.

I'm wondering, could something like the above be leveraged by tracks to make horse race betting more attractive to the public at large? (And drive increased interest in the sport, increases in handle, and higher total revenue for tracks and bigger purses for horsemen?)


Jeff Platt
Pres, HANA

.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

IMHO, we already have enough bets on the wagering menu. Instead of some new gimmick bet, why not make the current bets more attractive?

Based on the industry's own paid for economic studies we know the following:

1. There is an elastic relationship between takeout rates and handle.

2. A similar elastic relationship exists between field size and handle. (Although the studies themselves say that elasticity between takeout and handle is stronger than the elasticity between field size and handle.)

3. Recent studies also say that in the next few years the number of available horses of racing age is about to take a significant downturn.

Based on what we know from the paid for studies - What about something like this?:

Takeout Rates tied to Field Size
      
Field                    
 Size       WPS    EXOTIC
-----   -------   -------
    2     4.500     5.203
-----   -------   -------
    3     5.625     6.500
-----   -------   -------
    4     6.750     7.805
-----   -------   -------
    5     7.875     9.106
-----   -------   -------
    6     9.000    10.406
-----   -------   -------
    7   10.1250    11.707
-----   -------   -------
    8   11.2500    13.008
-----   -------   -------
    9   12.3750    14.309
-----   -------   -------
   10   13.5000    15.609
-----   -------   -------
   11   14.6250    16.910
-----   -------   -------
   12   15.7500    18.211
-----   -------   -------
   13   16.8750    19.512
-----   -------   -------
   14+  18.0000    20.813

In the above table, in the WPS column, starting with a field of just 2 runners I used a 4.5% takeout rate. FYI, that's the same "vig" a sports bettor faces when betting an NFL game. If you want to spark new interest in horse racing from the public at large I contend that betting a match race has to be on a level playing field takeout-wise with betting an NFL game.

Staying with the WPS column, each time field size is increased by 1 the takeout rate is increased by 1.1250 percent (up to a max takeout rate of 18.00 percent at 14 runners.)

What ends up happening (if you look at the rates in the WPS column closely) is that smaller fields become more attractive from a betting standpoint than they are at present takeout levels.

What also ends up happening in the WPS column is that once field size reaches 7 to 8 runners, the takeout rate becomes approximately the same effective takeout rate currently offered to serious bettors after a rebate is factored in.

The rates in the Exotics column were arrived at in the following manner:

I took NYRA's takeout rate for Exactas (18.50 percent) and divided that by NYRA's takeout rate for WPS (16.00 percent) which gave me the ratio of Exacta to WPS (1.15625) on the NYRA wagering menu. From there, I simply took the takeout rate from the WPS column and multiplied by 1.15625 to arrive at the Exotics takeout rate for each possible field size. (Note that I used NYRA's numbers as the basis for my rate schedule because NYRA handles more money than any other racing jurisdiction. Also note that the numbers in the above chart have been rounded off to 3 decimal places for ease of display.)

I'm a serious horse bettor. Our current takeout rates (and breakage) have me passing LOTS of smaller fields. As field sizes continue to shrink I find myself passing more and more races. (I have a hard time imagining I'm the only one.)

Obviously, something like the above would make smaller fields more attractive to me. (Again, I have a hard time imagining I'm the only one.)

According to The Jockey Club website, North American thoroughbred handle peaked in 2003 at $15.9 billion and has been falling each year since. Last year's number was $11.5 billion.

Unless we change the course we're on we can expect more of the same.

I contend the problem isn't that we need some new gimmick bet. Instead, maybe the time has come to address the reasons why our current bets are causing total customer spend on the thoroughbred racing product to shrink at the rate of minus 4 percent each year.

I'm wondering, could something like the above be leveraged by tracks to make horse race betting more attractive to the public at large? (And drive increased interest in the sport, increases in handle, and higher total revenue for tracks and bigger purses for horsemen?)


Jeff Platt
Pres, HANA

.

Excellent recommendation and one of the most interesting posting in the board for long time!

I hope the industry is listening..

Actually, I had exactly the same discussion the other night, with Thask, who
also is a strong advocate of the reduced take out based in field size!

[Robert Goren]

I would be interested to seeing if these kinds of new bets actually bring in handle or just cannibalise other pools.

[the little guy]

I appreciate people's thoughts on the new bet idea, and will continue to read people's reactions as it specifically pertains to this new bet.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by shots

How would they handle late scratches ?

This is problematic, but we would have to work it into the consolation pool.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Excellent recommendation and one of the most interesting posting in the board for long time!

I hope the industry is listening..

Actually, I had exactly the same discussion the other night, with Thask, who
also is a strong advocate of the reduced take out based in field size!

i believe that all the new exotic type wagering is at the law of diminishing returns.

the cost to buy, train and and extra work on horses has also hit the law of diminishing return.

we need good businessmen working on ways to improve business in horse racing, not handicappers like us that come up with new ways for people to lose their money.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Originally Posted by the little guy

I'm curious, anyone have any thoughts on a potential new bet....a Pick-3 exacta? Offered on the last three races, you would have to hit three straight exactas. It could be a carryover bet, where 75% of the pool carries if nobody hits it, with a 10 cent minimum.

As an example, if you wanted to play three straight 3-horse boxes, it would be 216 combinations ( 6 x 6 x 6 ) or $21.60 for a dime.

The late scratch rule is a tough thing to iron out when dealing with horizontal wagers on vertical bets. Do you get a refund on affected combos? Do you get the favorite, and what if you already have the favorite?

To set the bet up to be ADW friendly, you would probably be limited to take boxes in each race (2,3,4, etc.)

Average exacta payoff right now at Belmont is $99. Factor in takeout, and the true odds are around 58-1. So assuming average field size for those races, the average odds to hit this bet will be a little over 200,000-1, which means the average 10 cent payoff will be around $17,000 (if takeout is 15%), so there is carryover potential. Maybe a 20 cent minimum makes more sense.

I think it has potential.

[classhandicapper]

I'd be more in favor of a double exacta than triple exacta, but I'm not the typical player.

I'm not looking to make a score just so I can say I made a score. I'm looking for any edge I can find where my probability of hitting the bet is high enough it won't become a monetary or psychological drain if I go bad for awhile.

It's also pretty rare for me to have value oriented opinions in 3 consecutive races. I almost never play the pick 3 unless I have a value oriented opinion in all the legs (otherwise, I just play doubles).

Back to back exactas would be right up my alley. If fact, rolling back to back exactas would be my dream bet. I would almost never play a triple exacta.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

IMHO, we already have enough bets on the wagering menu. Instead of some new gimmick bet, why not make the current bets more attractive?

Based on the industry's own paid for economic studies we know the following:

1. There is an elastic relationship between takeout rates and handle.

2. A similar elastic relationship exists between field size and handle. (Although the studies themselves say that elasticity between takeout and handle is stronger than the elasticity between field size and handle.)

3. Recent studies also say that in the next few years the number of available horses of racing age is about to take a significant downturn.

Based on what we know from the paid for studies - What about something like this?:

Takeout Rates tied to Field Size
      
Field                    
 Size       WPS    EXOTIC
-----   -------   -------
    2     4.500     5.203
-----   -------   -------
    3     5.625     6.500
-----   -------   -------
    4     6.750     7.805
-----   -------   -------
    5     7.875     9.106
-----   -------   -------
    6     9.000    10.406
-----   -------   -------
    7   10.1250    11.707
-----   -------   -------
    8   11.2500    13.008
-----   -------   -------
    9   12.3750    14.309
-----   -------   -------
   10   13.5000    15.609
-----   -------   -------
   11   14.6250    16.910
-----   -------   -------
   12   15.7500    18.211
-----   -------   -------
   13   16.8750    19.512
-----   -------   -------
   14+  18.0000    20.813

In the above table, in the WPS column, starting with a field of just 2 runners I used a 4.5% takeout rate. FYI, that's the same "vig" a sports bettor faces when betting an NFL game. If you want to spark new interest in horse racing from the public at large I contend that betting a match race has to be on a level playing field takeout-wise with betting an NFL game.

Staying with the WPS column, each time field size is increased by 1 the takeout rate is increased by 1.1250 percent (up to a max takeout rate of 18.00 percent at 14 runners.)

What ends up happening (if you look at the rates in the WPS column closely) is that smaller fields become more attractive from a betting standpoint than they are at present takeout levels.

What also ends up happening in the WPS column is that once field size reaches 7 to 8 runners, the takeout rate becomes approximately the same effective takeout rate currently offered to serious bettors after a rebate is factored in.

The rates in the Exotics column were arrived at in the following manner:

I took NYRA's takeout rate for Exactas (18.50 percent) and divided that by NYRA's takeout rate for WPS (16.00 percent) which gave me the ratio of Exacta to WPS (1.15625) on the NYRA wagering menu. From there, I simply took the takeout rate from the WPS column and multiplied by 1.15625 to arrive at the Exotics takeout rate for each possible field size. (Note that I used NYRA's numbers as the basis for my rate schedule because NYRA handles more money than any other racing jurisdiction. Also note that the numbers in the above chart have been rounded off to 3 decimal places for ease of display.)

I'm a serious horse bettor. Our current takeout rates (and breakage) have me passing LOTS of smaller fields. As field sizes continue to shrink I find myself passing more and more races. (I have a hard time imagining I'm the only one.)

Obviously, something like the above would make smaller fields more attractive to me. (Again, I have a hard time imagining I'm the only one.)

According to The Jockey Club website, North American thoroughbred handle peaked in 2003 at $15.9 billion and has been falling each year since. Last year's number was $11.5 billion.

Unless we change the course we're on we can expect more of the same.

I contend the problem isn't that we need some new gimmick bet. Instead, maybe the time has come to address the reasons why our current bets are causing total customer spend on the thoroughbred racing product to shrink at the rate of minus 4 percent each year.

I'm wondering, could something like the above be leveraged by tracks to make horse race betting more attractive to the public at large? (And drive increased interest in the sport, increases in handle, and higher total revenue for tracks and bigger purses for horsemen?)


Jeff Platt
Pres, HANA

.

I love this. It's so sensible, I can't imagine it ever being done. In fact, I'd say it's brilliant. I'm pissed off I never thought of it. My handle would almost certainly soar under this scenario. It could easily be a win - win for the tracks and players even if the details need to be tweaked.

[Jens]

The only change I would make to the post by Jeff P would be to have takeout rates be based on wagering interests rather than field size. Unfortunately, without a single national racing authority I can't see it happening. Good luck on getting the politicians, horsemen, state and track fiefdoms etc. giving up any of their power. Racinos are a prime example. Everybody won except the customer and the long term welfare of the industry.