Does a tracks take out percentage really matter?

[ZippyChippy423]

I have a friend who seems to handicap pretty well but will not play tracks that have a higher then normal take out percentage. Several years ago he was tracking a few horses that ended up at Calder Race Course( now used as Gulfstream West). These two horses ended up being in two legs of a pick 4 that day. If i remember correctly my friend would bet Tampa Bay and they both shipped in from there. I asked him if he would like to split a pick 4 bet singling the two horses he felt strongly about and using all the other horses in the other two races. He strongly denied wanting to do so because the take out percent at Calder was like 27% at that time. I said So? I still played the ticket and the pick 4 was $14,000. So the moral of the story is if you feel like you like a horse to win that much why abstain betting it because the take percentage is higher then average...to this day it boggles my mind. It was December of 2010 when it happened.

[Dave Schwartz]

Takeout at Keno is around 45%. Winners are still thrilled with a $25k hit but have an impossible time getting to even.

Takeout matters.

[jay68802]

Lower take out goes both ways, it keeps the bankroll from declining as fast, and how many more $ would have that payout been with the lower take?

[ZippyChippy423]

But should it prevent you from cashing in on what you would consider a very strong play? If you are an astute handicapper with great money management you are not going to play every race going on. Totally skipping races with your top selections is perplexing . Ok so the payoff would have been about 400 higher but that would not prevent me from not betting and netting over 13k.

[SG4]

Originally Posted by ZippyChippy423

But should it prevent you from cashing in on what you would consider a very strong play? If you are an astute handicapper with great money management you are not going to play every race going on. Totally skipping races with your top selections is perplexing . Ok so the payoff would have been about 400 higher but that would not prevent me from not betting and netting over 13k.

I believe the old adage you can beat a race but you can't beat the races comes into play here. I really try to avoid exorbitant takeout rates but sometimes you like a play too much to pass it up. If you're going to bet 30 races a year, a 20% take vs 27% is not going to affect you much, but if you're betting 30 races a day you're going to notice it.

[biggestal99]

I only play at tracks on the New Jersey exchange.

If I like a horse at another track?

No play. Its all about the benjamins.

I think over the long term I will have more money playing on the exchange and its 12% commission than playing the PM game with higher takeouts.

Have I missed some winners, of course.

do I think I am better off financially passing high takeout PM tracks?

Yes.

Allan

[Inner Dirt]

I play tracks where my handicapping style leads to cashing tickets. If Aqueduct had a 50% takeout I would still bet there, if Churchill Downs added 50% to each pool, I would not.

[therussmeister]

I am of the opinion that the quality of the competition (the other bettors) has a far greater impact on your success than the takeout rate. I suspect many of the sharpest players avoid the tracks with high takeout leaving the competition weak.

Having said that, I'm all for reducing the takeout on the tracks I play.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by SG4

I believe the old adage you can beat a race but you can't beat the races comes into play here. I really try to avoid exorbitant takeout rates but sometimes you like a play too much to pass it up. If you're going to bet 30 races a year, a 20% take vs 27% is not going to affect you much, but if you're betting 30 races a day you're going to notice it.

Odd. I see it exactly the other way around.

Seriously.

[MJC922]

It matters in the sense that fewer horses are going to be over your fair odds if the takeout is huge.

Essentially takeout comes off the top, that is, you bet $200 and with a 20% takeout the track gets $40. The only way to make up the $40 is by betting overlay horses, horses paying out more than breakeven fair odds.

Honestly we have bigger problems than takeout, I'll say that til the cows come home. High takeout can kill the game don't get me wrong but nobody bets anything at unacceptable odds anyway and the odds they show have the takeout applied already.

When I bet a horse at 6-1 that wins and end up paying 2-1, takeout isn't the problem.

If takeout is very high then the horse perhaps is 4-1 instead of 6-1. Now I might not bet 4-1 if I made the horse 3-1 fair odds. So fewer playable horses is the result of high take but the bigger problem is the frequent odds drop which comes after you accept the odds you've been shown.

[green80]

Originally Posted by therussmeister

I am of the opinion that the quality of the competition (the other bettors) has a far greater impact on your success than the takeout rate. I suspect many of the sharpest players avoid the tracks with high takeout leaving the competition weak.

Having said that, I'm all for reducing the takeout on the tracks I play.

We have a winner here, the best answer. While takeout matters it usually just varies a few %. While it has some impact, it is minor compared to the sharps hammering a horse at the bell and that $7 horse pays $3.80. The pro's tend to avoid the high takeout tracks and that leaves some tracks easier pickin. Has anybody compared the track takeout VS. the rebate at that track. I would venture to say that the same tracks with the high takeout have lower rebates but that is just a guess. With that said, if you find somewhere where you can win, the rest doesn't matter so much.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by green80

We have a winner here, the best answer. While takeout matters it usually just varies a few %. While it has some impact, it is minor compared to the sharps hammering a horse at the bell and that $7 horse pays $3.80. The pro's tend to avoid the high takeout tracks and that leaves some tracks easier pickin. Has anybody compared the track takeout VS. the rebate at that track. I would venture to say that the same tracks with the high takeout have lower rebates but that is just a guess. With that said, if you find somewhere where you can win, the rest doesn't matter so much.

I would wager that the OPPOSITE is true. The higher the takeout, the higher the rebates...and the more likely that the "pros" would be attracted to such a place.

[JustRalph]

Does the price of your next car matter?

Poker player? If you have a choice between to poker clubs right next door to each other, one takes/rakes 25% of every pot, one takes 15%. Where you gonna play?

It might be just that simple

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Does the price of your next car matter?

Poker player? If you have a choice between to poker clubs right next door to each other, one takes/rakes 25% of every pot, one takes 15%. Where you gonna play?

It might be just that simple

The takeout might be "just a few % points" when looked upon in the short-term...but it can have devastating side-effects in the long-term.

[acorn54]

mens warehouse had a saying, i believe it was them that said,"an educated consumer is our best customer". with race tracks, the opposite is true, an uneducated consumer is their best customer. in the old days that were not to long ago, i bet with pinnacle getting a 7 percent rebate and even bevis and butthead could have beaten the races under those terms. today with the lower average payoffs i stay away from all but week end play if i can. and then only more active in the good weather months. in all my years of keeping betting records my performance is best as the weather improves and racing hits it's high note.
dime breakage takes a heavy toll on low payouts. not to mention the fact that everyone is more or less on the same page. the parimutuel market has become much more efficient over recent years and more so as each month passes.