The 15-30 Takeout Solution. Would it work?

[Poindexter]

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.

Racing has been doing the same wrong thing for many years and that obviously isn't changing. We can type till our fingers fall off and they will continue to live their fantasy world that optimal takeout is somewhere in the 16 to 30% range and rebating actually is effective. I think in essence they have been and continue to be penny wise and dollar foolish. They are so worried about protecting their profit margin, they ignore the fact that they constantly drive away their actual and potential customer base. Also doesn't help that so many racetracks have neighboring casinos. They probably figure that if they lose them at the racetrack they will get them to come next door to the casino. It is the Santa Anita's and the Del Mar's of the world that need to lead the way.

All the boycott really does is drive home the message that we as horseplayers are unwilling to take further price increase. Doesn't fix anything. All we are basically doing is trying to stop a bad situation from becoming worse.

Slightly off topic, but it is really funny hearing the harness analysts at Mohawk, rave almost nightly about how great the pick 5 payoffs are (and these are the 20 cent variety which so many of you claim kills payoffs) . Yes it is there job to promote the bet, but it is also an illustration to what a difference it makes when pools are closer to fair takeout. This is in contrast to the jackpot super high 5 which now has a $600,000 carryover. They are always insisting that you have to play it (God may know why, I certainly don't) but I have never heard them ever say, "wow what an incredible payoff on that super high 5 the other night". Well guess what, they can't, because all that extra money goes into that worthless jackpot pool, killing the payoff.

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by cj

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.

give that man a

[thaskalos]

One Eye said:

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.



And they are absolutely right! Trying to beat today's game is a "fool's errand". But the game still offers certain advantages which other forms of gambling simply can't match...so, the game will always find participants.

1.) CONVENIENCE: What other game can a gambler play from his own home, in his pajamas? All other legal gambling venues force him to travel, sometimes for long distances...in order to amuse himself.

2.) BUDGET CONCERNS: Where else can a retiree, living on a fixed income, take a meager $50 bankroll...and gamble while exercising the "little grey cells" of his brain? Every other legalized form of gambling has priced him out, with the exception of slots...which he considers a "mindless" activity.

It's no coincidence that this game attracts mainly retirees.

[AltonKelsey]

The game can still be beaten but only by

1) Intense workload and even more intense experience

2) Luck

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by cj

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.

I am sure there are some leaving because of takeout rates (cost) but most leave or don't play anymore due to better alternatives. I don't think there would be a significant increase in horse betting if rates were cut to 10% across the board.

[Cholly]

Originally Posted by 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.

We’ve traded conjecture on this before. Cholly’s POV:
There was a massive drop in handle, on the order of 30%, after they began closing the pools before the gates opened.
Was it the $2 & $5 bettors who caused that? No way. Even if every one of them forgot to get their bet in, they don’t constitute enough money to cause that drop.
Was it $10K & $20k bettors, accustomed to getting their bet in at the last minute, who got shut out? Don’t think so. They didn’t get that kind of dough to bet by being sloppy in their wagering, unaware of changes in betting protocols.
Who’s left? Large bettors who previously had been betting 20-30 seconds after the break. If that was their advantage on the game, of course they’re not going to keep betting.

I’m not saying there is past-posting going on now (but I’m not saying there isn’t!). You may be right about what’s causing odds drops in today’s racing. After the Fix 6 the tote companies surely began reviewing their protocols, perhaps they’ve gotten that problem resolved. But pre-Fix 6, was there massive past posting occurring? Cholly says ANQAI--ain’t no question about it. I won’t claim to have any forsenic evidence. But as Sherlock Holmes said, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

[cj]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I am sure there are some leaving because of takeout rates (cost) but most leave or don't play anymore due to better alternatives. I don't think there would be a significant increase in horse betting if rates were cut to 10% across the board.

I think if that were to happen current players would bet a lot more. My handle would go up exponentially. My guess is we will never really know.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Cholly

We’ve traded conjecture on this before. Cholly’s POV:
There was a massive drop in handle, on the order of 30%, after they began closing the pools before the gates opened.
Was it the $2 & $5 bettors who caused that? No way. Even if every one of them forgot to get their bet in, they don’t constitute enough money to cause that drop.
Was it $10K & $20k bettors, accustomed to getting their bet in at the last minute, who got shut out? Don’t think so. They didn’t get that kind of dough to bet by being sloppy in their wagering, unaware of changes in betting protocols.
Who’s left? Large bettors who previously had been betting 20-30 seconds after the break. If that was their advantage on the game, of course they’re not going to keep betting.

I’m not saying there is past-posting going on now (but I’m not saying there isn’t!). You may be right about what’s causing odds drops in today’s racing. After the Fix 6 the tote companies surely began reviewing their protocols, perhaps they’ve gotten that problem resolved. But pre-Fix 6, was there massive past posting occurring? Cholly says ANQAI--ain’t no question about it. I won’t claim to have any forsenic evidence. But as Sherlock Holmes said, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

I don't disagree that it was going on previously, and at the least big bettors were being allowed to cancel bets after the race started...either way the edge was gone.

But, there were many people of the $5 bettor variety that were crying like little schoolboys that scraped their knees at recess every time they got shut out. It can be found here on this site. Tracks used that as a convenient excuse to go back to the way it was.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I am sure there are some leaving because of takeout rates (cost) but most leave or don't play anymore due to better alternatives.

What "better alternatives" do you suppose drove most of these disgruntled horseplayers away from their favorite game?

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I am sure there are some leaving because of takeout rates (cost) but most leave or don't play anymore due to better alternatives. I don't think there would be a significant increase in horse betting if rates were cut to 10% across the board.

I consider this statement to be completely illogical. All numbers will be pre rebate as many cannot get rebates. I believe there are a lot of horseplayers that currently lose about 7 % on the dollar(that is a very achievable number). I believe that only a tiny fraction cross into that profit zone(very tough to do). Now let's examine your statement. I would venture a guess that the typical blended takeout right now is about 20%. So if they reduced takeout to 10% that payoffs would increase 12.5%(90 they would payout divided by the 80 they currently pay out). So a player that is currently at -7% would transform into a a player that is +4.6%(.93*1.125) Even a player that is -10 % would become above break even. Even someone that can play just at -20 % would now be losing half as much, be losing at a much more comfortable rate, will stay in the game much longer, if not for their entire life. New players will not give up nearly as quickly and will be much more motivated to improve their game rather than quit. Poker Players and sports bettors and fantasy sports bettors would join the game in droves over time and with proper marketing and education.

This game should tower over every other every other gambling game. There is nothing even close in entertainment value. Yet it fades with every stride. Yet you and the powers that be keep singing that lowering takeout to a competitive level would be futile, yet nobody ever tries it. They just ASSUME. So little vision.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

What "better alternatives" do you suppose drove most of these disgruntled horseplayers away from their favorite game?

24/7 access to sports betting. If that had been around when I first started with racing I would have never started.

I think there are people who leave all different kinds of gambling every year. The problem is that racing doesn't replace the ones that leave.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

I consider this statement to be completely illogical. All numbers will be pre rebate as many cannot get rebates. I believe there are a lot of horseplayers that currently lose about 7 % on the dollar(that is a very achievable number). I believe that only a tiny fraction cross into that profit zone(very tough to do). Now let's examine your statement. I would venture a guess that the typical blended takeout right now is about 20%. So if they reduced takeout to 10% that payoffs would increase 12.5%(90 they would payout divided by the 80 they currently pay out). So a player that is currently at -7% would transform into a a player that is +4.6%(.93*1.125) Even a player that is -10 % would become above break even. Even someone that can play just at -20 % would now be losing half as much, be losing at a much more comfortable rate, will stay in the game much longer, if not for their entire life. New players will not give up nearly as quickly and will be much more motivated to improve their game rather than quit. Poker Players and sports bettors and fantasy sports bettors would join the game in droves over time and with proper marketing and education.

This game should tower over every other every other gambling game. There is nothing even close in entertainment value. Yet it fades with every stride. Yet you and the powers that be keep singing that lowering takeout to a competitive level would be futile, yet nobody ever tries it. They just ASSUME. So little vision.

You vastly overestimate the entertainment value of racing versus other alternatives. There might be a slight draw of hardcore serious gamblers who see an opportunity but as for attracting new players, no chance.

[ultracapper]

I disagree that lowering take would not create new players. Gamblers, in general, are smarter people than the general population. They are creative, analytical, opportunistic and energetic. Even the unrealistic dreamers will be attracted if they see an even playing field.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

The game can still be beaten but only by

1) Intense workload and even more intense experience

2) Luck

The fundamental paradox powering all advantage gambling is that most people get attracted to gambling because of the possibility of making money without working for a living, abd in fact successful advantage gambling requires massive amounts of work.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

I don't disagree that it was going on previously, and at the least big bettors were being allowed to cancel bets after the race started...either way the edge was gone.

But, there were many people of the $5 bettor variety that were crying like little schoolboys that scraped their knees at recess every time they got shut out. It can be found here on this site. Tracks used that as a convenient excuse to go back to the way it was.

It should be mentioned that the best way to do this reform would be by regulation. Take it out of the track's hands and let the state take the blame for shut-outs.