Vintage DRFs Scanned Online

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

Lowering it should help, but doing that alone is a temporary bandaid and not the be all end all. New fans must be generated as well and that's where perceptions must be changed. They need to draw those fans back that have no idea what takeout is, only that they love the sport.

That's the point Al. Takeout is not a decision maker for people. They just know they come home with money and that has sold the game of horse racing. It breeds new fans.

Also, in the UK racing is as fractured as it is here, some might say even worse. It is like that in Australia too, yet somehow they can get things done? C'mon!

What is the biggest draw to online poker for 18-34 year olds? Believe me, they would rather, and have more fun playing Halo 16 instead, but they dont. Why? Halo 18 does not allow them to make money. In poker they can make money, in horse racing they can not make money.

I know I posted this before, but this is a kid playing racing into 5% takeouts in Britain. It is not because he saw it on TV, or because his dad took him to the track. It is because he is a smart kid who at low takeout can make money. He had never even watched a horse race up until one year before he started.

Horse Racing Trader [ £0 - £350,000 Challenge ]


In 2009 I will set myself a challenge of making £350,000 (was £150,000, then £250,000) from trading horse racing using betting exchange software Bet Angel for Betfair and Betdaq whilst documenting my progress. Enjoy reading and feel free to contact me about anything.

He is up around $US390,000 so far this year, and guess what? A pile of his young friends are playing horse racing, and now even going to the track to watch live. Who wouldn't want to join him if he is making more money than all his friends combined?

I used that as an example at a conference awhile back. A racing exec said "wow, no wonder it is popular over there, that is better than any commercial for racing you can ever see!" I said "so why dont we hop on the train and create that then by lowering takeout". He said "oh that will never happen".

Winners breed fans. We need winners. We don't have enough of them with 21.8% takeouts and never will. It is the single biggest crux to the growth of this game, and has been for generations. We could have a commissioner, free admission and dancing girls and it wont make a kid like the above come and bet the track, only winning at the races does that. The problem is, imo, we have too many people saying "we can not do it" and using excuses or enabling them, instead of people who actually want to tackle this issue to save the game of racing.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

OTM: Now let me address the meet of your argument about the $30 bankroll. Please explain to me why you could make it through the whole card in the past and have money left while today you couldn't make it through a like 8 races today? A 1 to 2% average difference on the same bets you could have made in 1967 vs those same bets today is not the reason you would get your bankroll chewed up. The reason it happens people start betting too many races all over the place or multiple different wagers on individual races because they can. If the individual was betting in the same way he was back then, the results would be little different (ignoring the effects of greater information such as speed figs and other such innovations).
**************************************
You are missing the fact that it is human nature for the gambler or horseplayer to make a score when they go to the track. Sure, if the gambler just played win place and show and forgot that there were exotics in every race today, they could last, but that isn't reality.

The reality is that today's player will take $100 or $200 to the track and play exactors, triactors, pick3's etc. all at much higher takeouts because they are looking for the score. And because there are other tracks now offered, there is very little chance that the gambler will go home most days with enough to be enthused to go back tomorrow. Not like the 60's and early 70's.


OTM: In fact, I would argue on average a 1% decrease in takeout would not result in a like increase in returns on many bets. Lower odds horses would still be driven down to near the same levels. I would have to believe, without seeing evidence otherwise, it would be the payoffs on the longer odds horses that would pay better. Lower take should not uniformly increase payoffs by the same % amounts across the board but should skew with proportionally greater amounts bet to the more likely winners or winning combinations. The most frequent winning bets would pay more, but not by the full amount.
***********************
Actually, that just doesn't make any sense. Of course, a lower takeout will result in more money be given to players every race, so collectively the gamblers will wind up with more money after a race is official the lower the takeout. I'm not arguing about what the exact prices the longshots or fave's go off at, you are speculating here, but what we see on Betfair, is that most favorites pay more at Betfair than they do at the track.

[OTM Al]

I'm going to go one more time then I'm done with this.

Dean: One more time. I do not disagree that take needs to be lowered. Let me say that again. I do not disagree. However, it is not by itself enough. It is a part that needs addressed, but it will not fix everything by itself. It's like I always argue with baseball fans who keep parroting what they hear. Pitching and defense do not, by themselves win championships. They are only half of what is needed. Reduced take is a big component, but without other strategies the population of players will continue to dwindle and drop the take all you want, it does nothing if no money is going into the pools. Keep up your work, but there are others out there doing other things that need be done too.

As to our authiorized sponsor:

Originally Posted by Horseplayersbet.com

You are missing the fact that it is human nature for the gambler or horseplayer to make a score when they go to the track. Sure, if the gambler just played win place and show and forgot that there were exotics in every race today, they could last, but that isn't reality.

The reality is that today's player will take $100 or $200 to the track and play exactors, triactors, pick3's etc. all at much higher takeouts because they are looking for the score. And because there are other tracks now offered, there is very little chance that the gambler will go home most days with enough to be enthused to go back tomorrow. Not like the 60's and early 70's.

You said this was due to takeout. I said it was due to a change in behavior. Now you seem to agree. So what's your point? People that behave stupidly with their money are going to get cleaned out no matter what gaming they are involved in. Please don't blame stupid behavior on takeout. This argument is a complete non sequitur

Originally Posted by Horseplayersbet.com

Actually, that just doesn't make any sense. Of course, a lower takeout will result in more money be given to players every race, so collectively the gamblers will wind up with more money after a race is official the lower the takeout. I'm not arguing about what the exact prices the longshots or fave's go off at, you are speculating here, but what we see on Betfair, is that most favorites pay more at Betfair than they do at the track.

You don't understand what I'm saying. Of course with a lower take more money in total will be paid out, but as an individual bettor, what difference does that in and of itself make to me? Especially when the most likely winners are going to have their prices bid down pretty much as far as they are now. People that are willing to play a horse at 5/2 aren't going to change that assessment no matter what the take. My point is that a reduction in take is going to have the least affect on the prices paid on the most frequent winners. Longshots should start paying quite a bit more however. I'm saying that the increase in amounts paid for a winning ticket will not be uniform accross all possible prices. What do I care if a pool goes up by $100,000 if I only net $4.10 instead of $4 on a horse that was 2-1 unless I'm a whale?

Now I'm done.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

OTM: You said this was due to takeout. I said it was due to a change in behavior. Now you seem to agree. So what's your point? People that behave stupidly with their money are going to get cleaned out no matter what gaming they are involved in. Please don't blame stupid behavior on takeout. This argument is a complete non sequitur
*******************************
If takeouts were reduced across the board on every bet to say 15% on everything, it would take longer to clean people out. The longer a person lasts, the more apt they are to return to the track or bet more on the internet, etc. The more likely they are to spend more time handicapping, and watching races too, the more likely they are to go to the track and maybe get friends and family involved. Out of the friends and family, there will be a percentage that will come back more frequently, and the odd one will eventually become a regular too.

This happened in the 60's and 70's. It doesn't happen very often anymore, because customers go broke too fast.



OTM: You don't understand what I'm saying. Of course with a lower take more money in total will be paid out, but as an individual bettor, what difference does that in and of itself make to me? Especially when the most likely winners are going to have their prices bid down pretty much as far as they are now. People that are willing to play a horse at 5/2 aren't going to change that assessment no matter what the take. My point is that a reduction in take is going to have the least affect on the prices paid on the most frequent winners. Longshots should start paying quite a bit more however. I'm saying that the increase in amounts paid for a winning ticket will not be uniform accross all possible prices. What do I care if a pool goes up by $100,000 if I only net $4.10 instead of $4 on a horse that was 2-1 unless I'm a whale?
************************
Seriously, if that is your attitude, I don't see any argument against having the takeout raised to 70%.

[DeanT]

Hey Al,

Dont get me wrong, I am fully on board with you on several things. Namely, a lot has to be done, and there are a lot of good people in racing who want to do them, but are handcuffed. We have much to do.

I am just focused on this because it goes to the heart of our game. People in marketing departments have to sell racing. People at tracks do, and at ADW's do. Racing is a game with a tagline of "you can beat a race but you can not beat the races". I feel for everyone having to sell that game to people, and I think that they are up against it. It would be like marketing a restaurant with a tagline of "dont come here, the food sucks".

I sincerely think if we can get rid of that tagline and have more people going home with more money, or at the very least lasting longer, we can market the sport and grow it to new and old fans alike. I think it should be the first step, not the last.