Can someone simply explain rebates to me? Is it only off losses? - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Neumeier · 10-13-2015, 04:49 PM

I've never dealt with rebates before so I have a question. It's very simple but for some reason the site can't give me a simple answer.

The site offers 7% rebate. I'm guessing this is off losses.

I asked my 3rd person at the site after no luck with the 1st two.

They said I get 7% back the next day off all bets winners or losers. Is this normally correct?

Hypothetically I can put $10,000 to show on a 1-9 shot and get $700 back? I know the answer to that has to be no but can someone give me a very simple explanation? Thanks

classhandicapper · 10-13-2015, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neumeier

Hypothetically I can put $10,000 to show on a 1-9 shot and get $700 back? I know the answer to that has to be no but can someone give me a very simple explanation? Thanks

You have to check the rules at your site.

I was betting to "place" fairly heavily with a 7% rebate during the 14% take period at NYRA in the pre net pool pricing days. To get the rebate, you needed a minimum payoff of 2.30. If the horse lost you got the 7%. If the horse won and paid 2.20, no rebate.

therussmeister · 10-13-2015, 05:26 PM

Also many places will not give a rebate on a bet into a negative show pool.

Poindexter · 10-13-2015, 05:37 PM

Yes rebates are payed on all bets win or lose(as mentioned by CH-books all have rules for low priced horses). You need to read the rules and familiarize with the rules no matter who you use. There are some offshore books that offer a 10% bonus on winning payouts rather than a rebate. Obviously if you are break even or better that would likely be better than a rebated(bet $100,000, break even and get $110,000 back-which is essentially a 10% rebate and if you are a winner even better-bet $100,00 get back $120,000 and get $12,000 in bonuses or a 12% rebate......).

SG4 · 10-15-2015, 10:58 PM

Would you mind sharing the site who is offering 7%? Does anyone else have suggestions for places that offer rebates of such a nice amount?

green80 · 10-16-2015, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SG4

Would you mind sharing the site who is offering 7%? Does anyone else have suggestions for places that offer rebates of such a nice amount?

I ask the same question, 6% is the largest rebate I have found on WPS wagering with about 9% on exotics. This varies according to the host track's signal fees. This is on the total amount bet, it doesn't matter how much you win or lose.

Track Collector · 10-16-2015, 08:32 PM

Getting 7%+ rebate legally on WPS is possible for many different tracks, provided one wagers BIG money each year. Even then, minus pools typically do not have rebates paid on them.

Fox · 10-17-2015, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SG4

Would you mind sharing the site who is offering 7%? Does anyone else have suggestions for places that offer rebates of such a nice amount?

My guess is he is referring to non-parimutuel offshore book Betonline.

Stillriledup · 03-06-2016, 01:07 PM

I was thinking about this yesterday and how some people say that if rebate bettors are in the pools, the prices 'pay less' or something like that.

Ok, so as an example, here are the final odds (with rebate bettors in the pools) of Race 2 at Aqu on March 4th.

Here are what each runner pays on a 2 dollar bet if they had won.

4.10
4.30 (winner)
34.60
68.00
12.00

Some might suggest that without the rebate bettors in the pool, the 4.30 winner might have paid 4.40 or 4.50. But if that's the case, woudnt the horse who was supposed to pay 4.10 only pay 4.00 or 3.90? Doesn't another runner have to go down in odds if the 4.30 winner goes up?

If the 4.30 winner went up to 4.50 and the 4.10 horse went to 3.90 (I know that's not how it works as other horses come into play, just using this for an example) can't you say the same thing about the other main contender that he 'would have' paid more had he won?

I know you want to think you get 'higher win prices' if rebate bettors aren't allowed in the pools, but that money has to come from somewhere, if the winner goes up, others come down.

green80 · 03-06-2016, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

I was thinking about this yesterday and how some people say that if rebate bettors are in the pools, the prices 'pay less' or something like that.

Ok, so as an example, here are the final odds (with rebate bettors in the pools) of Race 2 at Aqu on March 4th.

Here are what each runner pays on a 2 dollar bet if they had won.

4.10
4.30 (winner)
34.60
68.00
12.00

Some might suggest that without the rebate bettors in the pool, the 4.30 winner might have paid 4.40 or 4.50. But if that's the case, woudnt the horse who was supposed to pay 4.10 only pay 4.00 or 3.90? Doesn't another runner have to go down in odds if the 4.30 winner goes up?

If the 4.30 winner went up to 4.50 and the 4.10 horse went to 3.90 (I know that's not how it works as other horses come into play, just using this for an example) can't you say the same thing about the other main contender that he 'would have' paid more had he won?

I know you want to think you get 'higher win prices' if rebate bettors aren't allowed in the pools, but that money has to come from somewhere, if the winner goes up, others come down.

You are exactly right. This argument about the horses paying less because of the big rebate bettors has to be based on these guys being always right. If the whale money comes in on a loser, the winner has to pay more. If these guys hit 40%, they still are wrong 60% of the time.

Dave Schwartz · 03-06-2016, 03:17 PM

It isn't just about lowering the odds. It is about lowering the odds on the winners.

Our wagering does not exist in a vacuum. That is, if a large segment of pool money has gotten smarter, it makes it more difficult for anyone (including the "smarter segment") to be profitable.

The extreme odds shifts of this age are caused by the fact that it is a much smaller "pool" of people who are driving the odds changes. Literally, just a half-dozen or so wager about 1/7th of every dollar. Since there are less people wagering, they are (logically) going to fall on the same horse(s) more often.

That's why it is pretty common for a horse to drop from (say) 3/1 to odds-on during the running of the race: the big boys are in agreement.

Stillriledup · 03-06-2016, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

It isn't just about lowering the odds. It is about lowering the odds on the winners.

Our wagering does not exist in a vacuum. That is, if a large segment of pool money has gotten smarter, it makes it more difficult for anyone (including the "smarter segment") to be profitable.

The extreme odds shifts of this age are caused by the fact that it is a much smaller "pool" of people who are driving the odds changes. Literally, just a half-dozen or so wager about 1/7th of every dollar. Since there are less people wagering, they are (logically) going to fall on the same horse(s) more often.

That's why it is pretty common for a horse to drop from (say) 3/1 to odds-on during the running of the race: the big boys are in agreement.

But that's a smartness thing and not a rebate thing. Taking away rebates from everyone isn't going to make the crowd 'less smart' it's not going to make 4 dollar winners pay 4.20

green80 · 03-06-2016, 04:20 PM

you are right, the rebates have nothing to do with the prices except maybe attracting the smart guys who in turn bet on the winner lowering the price.

But... they are not right all the time, so the prices on the horses they don't bet are higher when they win. So I would say they help prices more than hurt, the smart guys can't be right over 50% of the time.

biggestal99 · 03-07-2016, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by green80

you are right, the rebates have nothing to do with the prices except maybe attracting the smart guys who in turn bet on the winner lowering the price.

But... they are not right all the time, so the prices on the horses they don't bet are higher when they win. So I would say they help prices more than hurt, the smart guys can't be right over 50% of the time.

well they were right yesterday in aqueduct's 7th. Imslowpokerodriguez Paid 4.50 tote. Paid 6.00 on Betfair.

the money flowed in from off track like a sure that it was.

Allan

Seabiscuit@AR · 03-07-2016, 09:17 AM

Stillriledup

You are correct that the odds on the horses not backed by the big rebate syndicates will go up. However those horses will be losing over -20% in the long run anyways

The second point is that if instead of paying a 10% rebate to 20% of the money invested you instead lowered the takeout for everyone by 2% then the odds on the horses not backed by the rebaters would be the same as they are with the rebaters in the pools

So in your example the 4.10 horse with rebates would have paid 4.10 if you lowered the takeout for everyone by 2%

Lowering the takeout for all is a much better option than selective rebating