NYRA adding third daily Pick 4 to wagering menu

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by castaway01

The public always gets destroyed. What gambling game does the public not get destroyed? Slots are high takeout and relentless churn. The lottery is 40% take out, yet people fight to get in line. You wrote "the novice bettor is going to lose close to 40%"...yeah, no bleep. That's why we need more novice bettors in the pools. That's the only way (other than massive rebates) to keep the less-than-sheep in the game.

The lottery is not even in the discussion, because people play it for a different reason. They plop down ten, twenty, thirty bucks with the hope that they will hit 500 million dollar prize. It is not rational, but in the course of life and its struggles, people with little hope are finding hope that maybe they will become the next person that wins 500 million dollars. In many drawing somebody wins. Tell the person who wins 500 million in the next big jackpot pool how irrational he or she was. There is nothing in the racing world that can compete with that so no point in even thinking about or talking about. Completely irrelevant.

Slot machines in Vegas on the high end hold almost 9%, not 40%.

re: That's why we need more novice bettors in the pools. That's the only way (other than massive rebates) to keep the less-than-sheep in the game.


NSS. Yes you need novice bettors in the pool. But they are not going to stay in the game when they are losing 30 or 40% on the dollar. They may be suckers but they are not stupid (at least most). What was the backbone of this game in 1975? It was the guy who would go to the track once or twice a week, bet his $200 a day, lose $30 to $50 a day and come back next time and hope he does better. Not bet $200 a day and lose $$60 to $80 a day. Also in 1975, racing was the only legal gambling game around sans Poker which was not very popular back then. There just comes a point where the game is asking too much of it's patrons and they walk. That happened years ago in racing. It doesn't matter that many walked, because there is a brand new market. But how do you attract the market when you are asking them to overcome a 28 to 29% hold? You don't and you can't. So racing is left with people that are just going or betting for entertainment and are either paltry bettors or have so much money they don't care. The paltry bettors do little for the game and I would argue that the people who have so much money they don't care would bet significantly more if they were doing better(not winning but better). So racing has two options, they can stick with the status quo and watch the game wither away (the sharpies will graduate to rebates if they can and the rest will wave the sport good bye or bet very small) or they can fix the pricing, eliminate rebates and correct the takeout to competitive numbers.

Everybody that has ever bet this game wants fish in the pool. But the racing industry has done the opposite. They have driven the fish out of the pool and have saturated the pools with the sharpest money ever. If you think that is the recipe for success, than enjoy the procession.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Everybody that has ever bet this game wants fish in the pool. But the racing industry has done the opposite. They have driven the fish out of the pool and have saturated the pools with the sharpest money ever. If you think that is the recipe for success, than enjoy the procession.

No one thinks that. I'm saying that if you broke down the percentages for every other gambling endeavor and took out the jackpot payoffs (the times the $2 player wins the $10,000 contest/pool/trifecta/pick a wager) they would all look like that. We all know that horse racing gambling AS A FLAT-BET WAGER FOR THE TOTALLY UNINFORMED is worse than most other options because the take is so high, but it's always been that way. It's not "new" information or due to rebates. You can argue whatever you want but unless takeout is going to 3% there is no way to change this fact.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by castaway01

No one thinks that. I'm saying that if you broke down the percentages for every other gambling endeavor and took out the jackpot payoffs (the times the $2 player wins the $10,000 contest/pool/trifecta/pick a wager) they would all look like that. We all know that horse racing gambling AS A FLAT-BET WAGER FOR THE TOTALLY UNINFORMED is worse than most other options because the take is so high, but it's always been that way. It's not "new" information or due to rebates. You can argue whatever you want but unless takeout is going to 3% there is no way to change this fact.

I never said it was new information. I have always said that rebates do not belong in pari mutuel markets. I am sure I have made over 100 posts on this very subject. I have given example after example of how high the takeout becomes on those that are not rebated. SRU used to argue with me forever about fuzzy math and a 16 percent takeout is a 16 percent takeout. But now we have actual 10 year data
Illustrating that the public as a whole is losing 28 to 29 percent in every exotic, even those with a takeout of 18.5 percent.

Cj posted above that he thought 24 percent on the pick 4 was very excessive, so what does that make 28 percent?

Since ocrunk posted those numbers this thread went really quiet. Tlg posted some silliness about this being the beauty of pari mutuel betting. Itp learned that the public gets crushed in every exotic pool. So I guess the narrative that public selectors giving out bad pick 4,5,6 advice is largely irrelevant, although I am sure that he can show me a tweet from 30 people who now beat this game like a drum thanks to his masterful advice.

Regarding your points Racing is a niche form of gambling. If you are real good you can beat it. The problem that too many cannot seem to get through their head is that the rebates eliminate. for just about everyone, any chance of beating it without getting rebates themselves. So while a lot of young people play poker and bet sports and dfs, they will not transition to horse race betting. Why would they play a 20 to 30 percent takeout game when there are so many better options. Those that try will soon learn the foolishness of trying.

Regarding takeout. Eliminate rebates, charge 8 percent wps 10 percent exacta and double 15 percent everything else and this game can grow. Some would then be able to beat it and grow their betting significantly. Many others will get very close and will invest a lot of time and energy and money trying to up their game. Plenty of others will lose 10 to 20 percent, but enjoy the game and support the game. This is the only model that will work.

You can agree or disagree. Doesn’t matter to me. I am not invested in this game. I enjoy racing but honestly if I never bet a horse race again I would be fine. I believe a lot of people who once loved this game have reached a similar conclusion all because of a stupid idea that they have gone all in with forever. This industry will rationalize their mistakes forever, but one day they might want to look in the mirror and realize that they screwed up but they can fix this. Or not!

[classhandicapper]

Some of the calculations on how much the public loses can be misleading.

We’ve all seen those charts where the very short priced favorites lose less than the track take, the 30-1 horses and higher lose way more than the take (and everything in between).

The problem with them is that they often average each category at the bottom and get a number that’s much higher than the take. That’s not the correct math. Way more money is bet on the short priced horses that either outperform the take or approximate it than the long shots. If you did a weighted average you’d get the right number.

I’ll make up some numbers to illustrate the point.

Let’s say short priced favorites lose 14% and huge long shots lose 30%. The average is 22% (much higher than the take), but more money is bet on the favorites. So if you did a weighted average it would approximate the track take plus breakage.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Some of the calculations on how much the public loses can be misleading.

We’ve all seen those charts where the very short priced favorites lose less than the track take, the 30-1 horses and higher lose way more than the take (and everything in between).

The problem with them is that they often average each category at the bottom and get a number that’s much higher than the take. That’s not the correct math. Way more money is bet on the short priced horses that either outperform the take or approximate it than the long shots. If you did a weighted average you’d get the right number.

I’ll make up some numbers to illustrate the point.

Let’s say short priced favorites lose 14% and huge long shots lose 30%. The average is 22% (much higher than the take), but more money is bet on the favorites. So if you did a weighted average it would approximate the track take plus breakage.

Ocrunks post stated that the public roi after takeout (not teams) was .72 over 10 years data in doubles for instance. That has only one meaning. For every million dollars they bet collectively they lost 28 percent and received back $720,000. There is no other way to interpret his post. Since tlg did not state otherwise I take it as fact.

What you have posted has nothing to do with this subject.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Ocrunks post stated that the public roi after takeout (not teams) was .72 over 10 years data in doubles for instance. That has only one meaning. For every million dollars they bet collectively they lost 28 percent and received back $720,000. There is no other way to interpret his post. Since tlg did not state otherwise I take it as fact.

What you have posted has nothing to do with this subject.

I haven’t looked at any data on pools besides WPS because I don’t have it available. I would have to do it manually. I would only suggest there’s a difference between the average player ROI and the overall ROI. That’s the point I was making.

To make the point another way, there are probably people out there that have lost 100% of everything they’ve put into the Pick 6 this year and there are people that are profitable. The average is pretty bad, but the net ROI of all the money is different than the average because some people bet more than others. Both pieces of information are useful.

[Poindexter]

CH, I do not disagree with some of the points you are making. I have said the same in my own posts (eg some will win, some will lose 0 to 10 percent etc). That doesn’t take away from any point I am making. At nyra in just about every exotic pool any bettor that was not part of a team as a group was paid out 71 to 72 cents on the dollar. Yes some of those players made money or lost so little money that rebates or rewards made them profitable. Others got completely crushed. But do not pretend that the takeout for a non rebated bettor in the exacta or double pool is only18.5 percent plus breakage.

If the sport ever wants to have a chance to grow, they have to fix this. IMO there is only one way.
The fact you find some info useful does not help the sport.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

CH, I do not disagree with the points you are making. I have said the same in my own posts (eg some will win, some will lose 0 to 10 percent etc). That doesn’t take away from any point I am making. At nyra in just about every exotic pool any bettor that was not part of a team as a group was paid out 71 to 72 cents on the dollar. Yes some of those players made money or lost so little money that rebates or rewards made them profitable. Others got completely crushed. But do not pretend that the takeout for a non rebated bettor in the exacta or double pool is only18.5 percent plus breakage.

If the sport ever wants to have a chance to grow, they have to fix this. IMO there is only one way.
The fact you find some info useful does not help the sport.

I understand everything you are saying.

What I think is happening is that the typical VERY BAD long shot player is actually losing LESS now than he used to because years ago he used to take 20-1 on some hopeless horse that should be 80-1 in all pools. Now they are 40-1 or 50-1 because the teams make the pools more efficient (looks at the Derby for example of how it used to be).

On the flip side, people like us used to be able to find some live horse at 8-1 and now he’s 6-1 because of them. Maybe there was some 2-1 shot I would play in the past and now he’s 8/5.

In the grand scheme of things there were always terrible players that lost their shirts, but now it’s harder to be good enough to beat the game because the pools are more efficient. Me personally, I view it as I’m trying to beat the take in a pool that is more efficient now than before. So it’s harder.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I understand everything you are saying.

What I think is happening is that the typical VERY BAD long shot player is actually losing LESS now than he used to because years ago he used to take 20-1 on some hopeless horse that should be 80-1 in all pools. Now they are 40-1 or 50-1 because the teams make the pools more efficient (looks at the Derby for example of how it used to be).

On the flip side, people like us used to be able to find some live horse at 8-1 and now he’s 6-1 because of them. Maybe there was some 2-1 shot I would play in the past and now he’s 8/5.

In the grand scheme of things there were always terrible players that lost their shirts, but now it’s harder to be good enough to beat the game because the pools are more efficient.

Bingo! Add this to the fact that there is a huge market of recreational advantage gamblers now that are ripe for conversion and you can see how foolish racing is to continue with this plan that does not and cannot work.