Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Racing Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 02-08-2018, 09:52 PM   #31
Andy Asaro
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,828
Rep Power: 8 Andy Asaro is a glorious beacon of lightAndy Asaro is a glorious beacon of lightAndy Asaro is a glorious beacon of lightAndy Asaro is a glorious beacon of lightAndy Asaro is a glorious beacon of light
Quote:
Originally Posted by Afleet View Post
I don't play CA, but isnt their handle still going down?
Santa Anita is up.
Andy Asaro is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-12-2018, 05:49 PM   #32
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,727
Rep Power: 14 dilanesp is a jewel in the roughdilanesp is a jewel in the roughdilanesp is a jewel in the roughdilanesp is a jewel in the rough
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamboguy View Post
for 50 years that i know of, you lay $110 to win $100 on football games. they have never gone up. some places actually give you a deal if you bet on a Friday night and give you the juice at $105 to win the $100. why should racing ever go up in their takeout? they are competing with sports gambling for their handle.

i admit that tracks do need more revenue. but to me you get more revenue by building up the product not charging more or giving away more to purses. you build it right back up by doing something stupid, offering up integrity. its pretty simple.
I went to Vegas a couple of weeks ago and they definitely are no longer consistently setting football lines at 110-100, and some of the lines are not 105-100 either. I saw some 115-100 and 120-100 on point spreads on playoff games.

I have a bit of inside knowledge of this, and that is that they are no longer necessarily setting lines to generate exactly even betting action (the traditional way a sports book operates, so that the house can never lose) and are now pursuing exploitative strategies that allow the book to make more money, including by modifying the vigorish to take in additional money.

So yes, they are screwing with takeout.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-13-2018, 01:11 AM   #33
ultracapper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,941
Rep Power: 8 ultracapper is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
I went to Vegas a couple of weeks ago and they definitely are no longer consistently setting football lines at 110-100, and some of the lines are not 105-100 either. I saw some 115-100 and 120-100 on point spreads on playoff games.

I have a bit of inside knowledge of this, and that is that they are no longer necessarily setting lines to generate exactly even betting action (the traditional way a sports book operates, so that the house can never lose) and are now pursuing exploitative strategies that allow the book to make more money, including by modifying the vigorish to take in additional money.

So yes, they are screwing with takeout.
Now, even betting NFL games, "value" will become a component in the decision making on whether to bet or not.
ultracapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-13-2018, 11:21 AM   #34
AndyC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,850
Rep Power: 10 AndyC has a spectacular aura aboutAndyC has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
I went to Vegas a couple of weeks ago and they definitely are no longer consistently setting football lines at 110-100, and some of the lines are not 105-100 either. I saw some 115-100 and 120-100 on point spreads on playoff games.

I have a bit of inside knowledge of this, and that is that they are no longer necessarily setting lines to generate exactly even betting action (the traditional way a sports book operates, so that the house can never lose) and are now pursuing exploitative strategies that allow the book to make more money, including by modifying the vigorish to take in additional money.

So yes, they are screwing with takeout.
Way too many places to shop for a price to believe that vig will go up in sports betting. The only thing that could screw up the free market for vig is heavy government intervention.
AndyC is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-13-2018, 02:51 PM   #35
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,727
Rep Power: 14 dilanesp is a jewel in the roughdilanesp is a jewel in the roughdilanesp is a jewel in the roughdilanesp is a jewel in the rough
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyC View Post
Way too many places to shop for a price to believe that vig will go up in sports betting. The only thing that could screw up the free market for vig is heavy government intervention.
Tell that to all the players in Las Vegas who are now playing 6 to 5 blackjack.

Seriously, A LOT OF GAMBLERS DO NOT CARE ABOUT TAKEOUT. Some do. Gambling businesses make more money by separating the two groups and charging them different rates. This is why we have rebate shops.

If you are a whale sports bettor, you can probably find a sports book to take your action at 115 rather than the 120 they were posting. But all the casual players don't care.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-15-2018, 06:15 PM   #36
Andy Asaro
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,828
Rep Power: 8 Andy Asaro is a glorious beacon of lightAndy Asaro is a glorious beacon of lightAndy Asaro is a glorious beacon of lightAndy Asaro is a glorious beacon of lightAndy Asaro is a glorious beacon of light
http://horseracingbusiness.com/

Excerpt:

A more likely explanation is that management was alarmed by the intensity of the bettor backlash–and the resultant decrease in handle–and decided it could not take the chance of the ill will spilling over into the April 2018 meet.
Andy Asaro is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-18-2018, 10:39 PM   #37
thaskalos
The Sleeper Must Awaken
 
thaskalos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 21,707
Rep Power: 44 thaskalos has much to be proud ofthaskalos has much to be proud ofthaskalos has much to be proud ofthaskalos has much to be proud ofthaskalos has much to be proud ofthaskalos has much to be proud ofthaskalos has much to be proud ofthaskalos has much to be proud of
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
I went to Vegas a couple of weeks ago and they definitely are no longer consistently setting football lines at 110-100, and some of the lines are not 105-100 either. I saw some 115-100 and 120-100 on point spreads on playoff games.

I have a bit of inside knowledge of this, and that is that they are no longer necessarily setting lines to generate exactly even betting action (the traditional way a sports book operates, so that the house can never lose) and are now pursuing exploitative strategies that allow the book to make more money, including by modifying the vigorish to take in additional money.

So yes, they are screwing with takeout.
If you had looked at the board a little closer...you would have seen that, when the takeout is raised on one team...it's reduced on the OTHER team. If one team is listed at -3 (-115)...then the other team is listed at +3 (-105). And if one team is listed at -3 (-120)...then the other team is offered at +3 (-100). The oddsmakers are simply shifting the takeout, in order to attract money on a given team without having to raise the actual spread on the game.

This doesn't mean that the takeout has been raised higher than its normal 110-100 level. The totality of the wager is still offered at 110-100.
__________________
The great challenge of life: Knowing enough to think we are right...but not knowing enough to know we are wrong.

Last edited by thaskalos; 02-18-2018 at 10:44 PM.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-19-2018, 12:39 PM   #38
toddbowker
Todd Bowker
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 126
Rep Power: 14 toddbowker is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
Seriously, A LOT OF GAMBLERS DO NOT CARE ABOUT TAKEOUT. Some do. Gambling businesses make more money by separating the two groups and charging them different rates. This is why we have rebate shops.
EVERY GAMBLER CARES ABOUT TAKEOUT, even if they don't know what it is.

Because they absolutely know how fast they go broke.

Take your average Joe who sits down at a slot machine. He puts his $100 in a machine and plays for an hour and loses the $100. Then he moves to another machine (or another casino) and plays for two hours before he loses his $100.

Which machine do you think he plays next time? He may not know that machine #1 had a 25% takeout and machine #2 was at 10%, but he knows he got 2x the play out of machine #2, and is going to gravitate there the next time he sits down to play.

Same thing if Joe goes to the track with $100. He plays the races and maybe loses the last of his $100 in the 8th race of the card each day. Then the track raises the takeout, and he finds himself done after the 6th. How do you think he feels about the value he is getting for his $100? He might not have a clue what the takeout is, or if the track raised it, but his wallet knows.

It's actually worse on the parimutuel side because of churn. Joe's $100 might have led to $700 in wagering before, but now it's down to $500.

Smart gambling businesses tweak their takeouts (or house advantage on the casino side) to maximize player experience and revenue. As an example, Tampa Bay Downs was always good at this. For several years they moved their takeouts around to see what worked and what didn't, before settling into a pretty good program. To their credit, I expect Keeneland is now doing the same. There was probably a realization somewhere that they might have gone a bit too far, and now they are making a few changes to see if they work better. Wouldn't surprise me if they made another set of adjustments after they see how the Spring Meet goes.
toddbowker is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-19-2018, 03:43 PM   #39
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,727
Rep Power: 14 dilanesp is a jewel in the roughdilanesp is a jewel in the roughdilanesp is a jewel in the roughdilanesp is a jewel in the rough
Quote:
Originally Posted by toddbowker View Post
EVERY GAMBLER CARES ABOUT TAKEOUT, even if they don't know what it is.

Because they absolutely know how fast they go broke.

Take your average Joe who sits down at a slot machine. He puts his $100 in a machine and plays for an hour and loses the $100. Then he moves to another machine (or another casino) and plays for two hours before he loses his $100.

Which machine do you think he plays next time? He may not know that machine #1 had a 25% takeout and machine #2 was at 10%, but he knows he got 2x the play out of machine #2, and is going to gravitate there the next time he sits down to play.

Same thing if Joe goes to the track with $100. He plays the races and maybe loses the last of his $100 in the 8th race of the card each day. Then the track raises the takeout, and he finds himself done after the 6th. How do you think he feels about the value he is getting for his $100? He might not have a clue what the takeout is, or if the track raised it, but his wallet knows.

It's actually worse on the parimutuel side because of churn. Joe's $100 might have led to $700 in wagering before, but now it's down to $500.

Smart gambling businesses tweak their takeouts (or house advantage on the casino side) to maximize player experience and revenue. As an example, Tampa Bay Downs was always good at this. For several years they moved their takeouts around to see what worked and what didn't, before settling into a pretty good program. To their credit, I expect Keeneland is now doing the same. There was probably a realization somewhere that they might have gone a bit too far, and now they are making a few changes to see if they work better. Wouldn't surprise me if they made another set of adjustments after they see how the Spring Meet goes.
You are ignoring that variance is huge in gambling. You have to bet a LOT of money to hit the convergence point.

Slots have so much churn that they are a special case, although reducing takeout isn't the only way to increase Time On Device. They also use bonus rounds.

But for most forms of gambling, the casual player takes a LONG time to bet enough where the main causal factor isn't short term luck. Hence, the need to discriminate and charge them higher takeout while charging less to players who care.

Last edited by dilanesp; 02-19-2018 at 03:50 PM.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-22-2018, 08:08 PM   #40
toddbowker
Todd Bowker
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 126
Rep Power: 14 toddbowker is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
You are ignoring that variance is huge in gambling. You have to bet a LOT of money to hit the convergence point.

Slots have so much churn that they are a special case, although reducing takeout isn't the only way to increase Time On Device. They also use bonus rounds.

But for most forms of gambling, the casual player takes a LONG time to bet enough where the main causal factor isn't short term luck. Hence, the need to discriminate and charge them higher takeout while charging less to players who care.
Not ignoring it at all. By virtue of you stating slots having a lot of churn and are a special case, you've just proved my point. They are the closest casino game to compare parimutuel wagering with because a slot machine operates off a straight takeout model also.

My point was all customers care, even if they don't consciously know it. But if we are to assume your premise that not all customers care and therefore should be treated differently, then ponder this.

If it's necessary to lower the effective takeout rate for "customers who care" why is it not the right thing to do for everyone? If the "customers who care" will bet more because of their lower effective takeout, wouldn't everyone bet more if the takeout were lower? After all, if the "customers who care" aren't going to bet more, then why bother charging them less?

The data I presented on our panel in Tucson showed that our customers churn rate was over 42% (a factor of 3x) higher when factoring rebates (which is how the industry currently lowers effective takeout).

Many people seem to forget we are in the churn business. Putting more money in the customer's hands will always increase churn rates. Optimizing that number to maximize revenue is the challenge, and it's not an easy solve, especially when everyone isn't doing it at the same time. That's why Bill was suggesting that tracks band together to do it.

Last edited by toddbowker; 02-22-2018 at 08:10 PM.
toddbowker is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-23-2018, 12:28 PM   #41
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,727
Rep Power: 14 dilanesp is a jewel in the roughdilanesp is a jewel in the roughdilanesp is a jewel in the roughdilanesp is a jewel in the rough
Quote:
Originally Posted by toddbowker View Post
Not ignoring it at all. By virtue of you stating slots having a lot of churn and are a special case, you've just proved my point. They are the closest casino game to compare parimutuel wagering with because a slot machine operates off a straight takeout model also.

My point was all customers care, even if they don't consciously know it. But if we are to assume your premise that not all customers care and therefore should be treated differently, then ponder this.

If it's necessary to lower the effective takeout rate for "customers who care" why is it not the right thing to do for everyone? If the "customers who care" will bet more because of their lower effective takeout, wouldn't everyone bet more if the takeout were lower? After all, if the "customers who care" aren't going to bet more, then why bother charging them less?

The data I presented on our panel in Tucson showed that our customers churn rate was over 42% (a factor of 3x) higher when factoring rebates (which is how the industry currently lowers effective takeout).

Many people seem to forget we are in the churn business. Putting more money in the customer's hands will always increase churn rates. Optimizing that number to maximize revenue is the challenge, and it's not an easy solve, especially when everyone isn't doing it at the same time. That's why Bill was suggesting that tracks band together to do it.
Slots are not close to horse racing.

A slot bettor has over 100 wagering cycles an hour. A casual horseplayer has 2. So if variance were equal, it would take 50 times as long for a casual horseplayer to outrun variance. (In actuality, variance is higher in horse racing.)

And even in slot machines, there is a trend towards higher takeout machines that use bonus rounds to increase time on device. The players don't care as long as they get to stay longer.

Your churn statistics are a mixture of casual and serious players. What you need to do is back out the rebate players and the large handle players. Then take the remainder of players and calculate how much they are affected by churn. The answer is going to be "almost no effect". A bettor who plays 6 races a week would have to play for decades before the main determinant of her results isn't luck. That bettor is not takeout sensitive.

We are all governed by the laws of math.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-23-2018, 04:52 PM   #42
RunForTheRoses
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,793
Rep Power: 17 RunForTheRoses is a jewel in the roughRunForTheRoses is a jewel in the roughRunForTheRoses is a jewel in the roughRunForTheRoses is a jewel in the rough
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
Tell that to all the players in Las Vegas who are now playing 6 to 5 blackjack.

Seriously, A LOT OF GAMBLERS DO NOT CARE ABOUT TAKEOUT. Some do. Gambling businesses make more money by separating the two groups and charging them different rates. This is why we have rebate shops.

If you are a whale sports bettor, you can probably find a sports book to take your action at 115 rather than the 120 they were posting. But all the casual players don't care.
When I lived in Vegas some 25 years ago casinos started charging -120 on NBA totals, they apparently were losing or just making enough.

The spread of 6 to 5 blackjack is atrocious.
RunForTheRoses is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-23-2018, 05:01 PM   #43
RunForTheRoses
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,793
Rep Power: 17 RunForTheRoses is a jewel in the roughRunForTheRoses is a jewel in the roughRunForTheRoses is a jewel in the roughRunForTheRoses is a jewel in the rough
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
If you had looked at the board a little closer...you would have seen that, when the takeout is raised on one team...it's reduced on the OTHER team. If one team is listed at -3 (-115)...then the other team is listed at +3 (-105). And if one team is listed at -3 (-120)...then the other team is offered at +3 (-100). The oddsmakers are simply shifting the takeout, in order to attract money on a given team without having to raise the actual spread on the game.

This doesn't mean that the takeout has been raised higher than its normal 110-100 level. The totality of the wager is still offered at 110-100.
Yes, I see that is much more common now, still a dime line but weighted. To a certain respect this was always done especially in football on or off 3 or 7.
RunForTheRoses is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-23-2018, 06:11 PM   #44
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 41,794
Rep Power: 66 cj is a splendid one to beholdcj is a splendid one to beholdcj is a splendid one to beholdcj is a splendid one to beholdcj is a splendid one to beholdcj is a splendid one to beholdcj is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post

A slot bettor has over 100 wagering cycles an hour. A casual horseplayer has 2. So if variance were equal, it would take 50 times as long for a casual horseplayer to outrun variance. (In actuality, variance is higher in horse racing.)
Unless you are talking about somebody betting only the local product on track, horseplayers have way more opportunities than 2 per hour.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 02-23-2018, 06:45 PM   #45
toddbowker
Todd Bowker
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 126
Rep Power: 14 toddbowker is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
Slots are not close to horse racing.

A slot bettor has over 100 wagering cycles an hour. A casual horseplayer has 2. So if variance were equal, it would take 50 times as long for a casual horseplayer to outrun variance. (In actuality, variance is higher in horse racing.)

And even in slot machines, there is a trend towards higher takeout machines that use bonus rounds to increase time on device. The players don't care as long as they get to stay longer.

Your churn statistics are a mixture of casual and serious players. What you need to do is back out the rebate players and the large handle players. Then take the remainder of players and calculate how much they are affected by churn. The answer is going to be "almost no effect". A bettor who plays 6 races a week would have to play for decades before the main determinant of her results isn't luck. That bettor is not takeout sensitive.

We are all governed by the laws of math.
Because of my work schedule I am at best what you would call a casual player. I still make thousands of bets a year, and can make 100's in a day when I have time to play. My hypotheticals are about the amount of wagering (churn) someone can do within a fixed loss amount, and how that could impact future behavior if they felt they were no longer getting their perceived value for the spend.

Your slot time argument is also flawed because for the purposes of making my point, I was assuming all factors other than the machine's takeout are equal.

Unfortunately, I can't remove rebate players from my calculations, as all of our players get rebated. If I re-ran the reports by handle level, I would still see the profitable (high ROI) players at all levels will have higher churn rates than the unprofitable ones, and that all of them (regardless of ROI or bet level) would have a higher churn rate because of the rebates than they would if they had not received them.

I noticed you didn't answer my question. If reducing takeout for those players that you deem to be "the one's who care" is necessary, then why is reducing takeout for everyone else therefore not necessary?

I'll take a stab at answering it for you. Revenue.

Lowering takeout raises handle. There are enough real-world examples to prove this out, but often times it doesn't raise handle enough to off-set the loss in revenue from the takeout reduction (Canterbury in 2016 for example). Raising takeout lowers handle (again, plenty of examples), but sometimes the drop in handle is offset by the higher revenue received from the increase (Keeneland Fall 2017 for example). Finding the right mix to maximize both is the $64 question.

The other issue the industry faces regarding reducing takeout is simulcasting, which can also skew the numbers because a customer can take his added winnings from a lower takeout track and bet it on a different track. This causes the lower takeout track to not get the full revenue benefit from lowering its takeout. That's why I have frequently used the phrase "lowering takeout always works in a vacuum" in my speeches, and why Bill said on our panel that the major tracks needed to work together on this.

I totally understand the thinking that there are customers that are immune to takeout. I did too before I started dealing with rebates, and sat down and talked to Math and Economics professors and did some research on parimutuel pools and the efficiency of betting markets. Really opened my eyes.
toddbowker is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
» Current Polls
Who wins HOY? Accelerate or Justify?
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2018 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved -- Best Viewed in a modern browser @ 1280x720 Resolution Or Higher
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.