Most of racing's issues reflected in one tweet

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

for some reason these tracks seem to think that 6 horses is a full field

No...they usually offer the race as an 8-horse field. And then it becomes a 6-horse field, after the obligatory 2 late scratches.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

They are, in my opinion. Races are not being written with betting in mind. They are mostly written to appease trainers. Until that changes, it isn't going to get better.

And here I thought it was that West Virginia had the smartest horseplayers.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

What are that the arguments that support the proposition that an increased favorite winning percentage is a bad thing? (My question is real and not rhetorical).

There's two big reasons it is bad, plus one bad thing it is reflective of.

The two big reasons it is bad are this:

1. Big payoffs are what attract people to gambling. Slot players want to win a big jackpot. Lottery players buy lots of tickets when the jackpot is big. Even table games nowadays often have jackpot bets that the public loves to play.

If you go to the track and every winner pays $3.60, and every trifecta pays $30, and even the pick 6 pays $2,500, that's terrible for attracting gamblers to the sport.

2. Regular players need occasional big scores. If you are just betting favorites, you are unlikely to beat the takeout. You need to be able to beat favorites to construct bets that pay well. If those opportunities never arise, the game becomes unbettable for the serious player.

And the bad thing it is reflective of, of course, is the short fields / horse shortage, which is terribly harmful for the game.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by mountainman

The sad abundance of winning favorites relates not only to field size, but to field "depth."

Another factor is the preponderance of late scratches. Lots of outfits coddle their inflated win percentages by simply refusing to lose. If their entrant isn't 4/5 on paper-if even ONE rival figures stronger-they take a vet scratch and don't compete. The relative ease in obtaining vet scratches is thus a sneaky underlying cause in this onslaught of winning chalk. And lacking a bonafide vet-scratch, lots of owners WILL pay a fine to avoid losing. NOBODY competes anymore, and sportsmanship is non-existent.

How unfortunate for players and bad for the game that handicappers must invest precious time in analyzing match-ups and pace scenarios never intended to transpire.

As a consequence of all this-and more-the system now circulates purse money in a manner that makes top trainers more (and more) dominant. It becomes a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle that only leads to the top guys procuring more horses to win more races against shorter and shorter fields of overmatched foes.

And, inevitably, when modest outfits say "uncle," highly-ranked horsemen can obtain less costly stock and STILL dominate.

This is one of the major reasons I think people who know how to handicap are limiting their betting involvement. As you've pointed out it's very frustrating to spend the time handicapping and then find out at post time most of it was wasted effort. And, I think most gamblers are pretty lazy regarding work. And, I'm referring to work in the gambling environment sense e.g., slots, craps, roulette etc.

Those who don't know how to handicap haven't really invested the time and effort. So, it probably doesn't really matter to them.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

So, why this logic applies to games like baccarat or blackjack which are very popular and attract tons of action?

Because of the high frequency of bets being made per hour or betting session.

If you had to wager on the same number of horse races, it would take months and maybe years.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

So, why this logic applies to games like baccarat or blackjack which are very popular and attract tons of action?

Because baccarat and blackjack feature a very low takeout. The only way an even-money game can survive is if the takeout it charges is small. Take the high payoffs out of horse racing...and it becomes the same as blackjack with a 20% takeout. Totally WORTHLESS as a gambling venue.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Because baccarat and blackjack feature a very low takeout. The only way an even-money game can survive is if the takeout it charges is small. Take the high payoffs out of horse racing...and it becomes the same as blackjack with a 20% takeout. Totally WORTHLESS as a gambling venue.

That's right. A good guide is sports betting. Bets against the spread are 11 to 10 (in horse racing terms, we'd say 10 to 11, $110 bet pays $210 on the win). That's a takeout of just over 4.5 percent. That's actually higher than blackjack, but people still bet plenty of money on sports, so I think it's reasonable to conclude that horse racing could offer decent value if tons of even money favorites were winning if the takeout were 4.5 percent. Well, actual takeout is about 4 times as much. Which only works with big prices.

(The flip side of this is the lottery, which survives very very high takeout (50 percent!) by offering astronomical payoffs. It's reasonable to say that the higher the average payoffs, the more they can get away with charging in takeout.)

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Because baccarat and blackjack feature a very low takeout. The only way an even-money game can survive is if the takeout it charges is small. Take the high payoffs out of horse racing...and it becomes the same as blackjack with a 20% takeout. Totally WORTHLESS as a gambling venue.

I am not sure that I completely agree that the take out comparison between baccarat and horse racing is very successful. The former is guaranteed to always represent a negative EV proposition while the same is not necessary true for the latter. The takeout in horse racing is not constant by no means and I dare to say that it is trivial to beat it even for relatively casual gamblers, something similar is impossible for games like baccarat, roulette or dice. This is why my usual refrain to statements like: “horse racing is a very difficult game” is that this is great because if it was easy (as baccarat for example) it would had been impossible to beat.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

That's right. A good guide is sports betting. Bets against the spread are 11 to 10 (in horse racing terms, we'd say 10 to 11, $110 bet pays $210 on the win). That's a takeout of just over 4.5 percent. That's actually higher than blackjack, but people still bet plenty of money on sports, so I think it's reasonable to conclude that horse racing could offer decent value if tons of even money favorites were winning if the takeout were 4.5 percent. Well, actual takeout is about 4 times as much. Which only works with big prices.

(The flip side of this is the lottery, which survives very very high takeout (50 percent!) by offering astronomical payoffs. It's reasonable to say that the higher the average payoffs, the more they can get away with charging in takeout.)

Precisely! The only way horse racing could justify the onerous takeouts that it charges is by featuring the sort of high payoffs which distinguish it from the other, more "reasonable" gambling games. But, by featuring short fields accompanied by the mini-minimum betting units that we now see...the game is doing exactly the OPPOSITE of what should be done...IMO. How can you compete in the current gambling environment, when your calling card is the 6-horse field...accompanied by the 50-cent trifecta and the 10-cent superfecta?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

I am not sure that I completely agree that the take out comparison between baccarat and horse racing is very successful. The former is guaranteed to always represent a negative EV proposition while the same is not necessary true for the latter. The takeout in horse racing is not constant by no means and I dare to say that it is trivial to beat it even for relatively casual gamblers, something similar is impossible for games like baccarat, roulette or dice. This is why my usual refrain to statements like: “horse racing is a very difficult game” is that this is great because if it was easy (as baccarat for example) it would had been impossible to beat.

When you say that beating the takeout in horse racing is a "trivial pursuit", even for the relatively "casual gamblers"...I am not sure what you mean. Do you find our game THAT easy to beat?

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

When you say that beating the takeout in horse racing is a "trivial pursuit", even for the relatively "casual gamblers"...I am not sure what you mean. Do you find our game THAT easy to beat?

I am not referring in beating the game but beating the takeout which are not the same thing. For example it is easy to come up with a mechanical selection process (using Prime Bris rating with some simple handicapping) to assure that your return will be more than random or what is suggested by the takeout; of course the sign of this strategy will be negative and a guarantee loser albeit at a lower rate than what is predicted by the absolute takeout figure.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

No...they usually offer the race as an 8-horse field. And then it becomes a 6-horse field, after the obligatory 2 late scratches.

Yes, the old bait and switch.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

I am not referring in beating the game but beating the takeout which are not the same thing. For example it is easy to come up with a mechanical selection process (using Prime Bris rating with some simple handicapping) to assure that your return will be more than random or what is suggested by the takeout; of course the sign of this strategy will be negative and a guarantee loser albeit at a lower rate than what is predicted by the absolute takeout figure.

Just "beating the takeout" can't be considered a noteworthy accomplishment, when the game demands the home workload that horse betting does. If I handicap for 5 hours a night, and then spend another 5 hours of active participation at the track...then I won't be satisfied with a -10% ROI, just because I beat the takeout by 10%.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Just "beating the takeout" can't be considered a noteworthy accomplishment, when the game demands the home workload that horse betting does. If I handicap for 5 hours a night, and then spend another 5 hours of active participation at the track...then I won't be satisfied with a -10% ROI, just because I beat the takeout by 10%.

We dont say anything different Thask!

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Yes, the old bait and switch.

This is not that far off of what is occurring.