Playersboycott.com Active. Grassroots Movement Starts

[Stillriledup]

Its amazing to me that smart human beings, which horseplayers certainly are, have to be prodded with red hot pokers (boycotts) in order to stop playing a track with a massive takeout. NFL bettors are paying approximately 5% "vig" and that 5% vig is what essentially prevents most experts from showing a profit as sports bettors.

5%.

Race fans, are handing over a blended TWENTY percent and liking it and saying "thank you sir, may i have another".

When that 20 becomes higher, it makes you wonder why ANYONE is betting a dollar on these races.

If sports betting is hard to beat at a 5% take, how are people accepting a takeout raise into what is already an obnoxiously high rake at a blended 20%.

Maybe one day i'll be smart enough to figure it out.

[OTM Al]

Simple answer. There are more than two betting interests. This creates the potential for higher returns than in sports wagering. Because of the potential for higher returns, bettors are willing to pay more for the wager. The price of the wager is the takeout. Pretty simple really.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

Simple answer. There are more than two betting interests. This creates the potential for higher returns than in sports wagering. Because of the potential for higher returns, bettors are willing to pay more for the wager. The price of the wager is the takeout. Pretty simple really.

What about in situations where people bet horses who are 4-5 or even money, they're giving up a 15% rake to "double their money" and they have to beat MORE than "1 horse" to get that 4-5 or even money. They could just bet a sports game and only have to beat one other entity to cash, and get 9-10 on their money.

I see what you're saying, if you are betting a 12 horse field and trying to hit a tri or super that pays over 1,000-1 than its not as bad as betting an even money shot in horse racing.

Yet, the short priced runners, and there are plenty of even money shot type horses around the country on a daily basis, people are paying 15 to 18 percent on that bet. Even in 2, 3 and 4 horse fields, horse racing keeps their takeout at the same levels.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

What about in situations where people bet horses who are 4-5 or even money, they're giving up a 15% rake to "double their money" and they have to beat MORE than "1 horse" to get that 4-5 or even money. They could just bet a sports game and only have to beat one other entity to cash, and get 9-10 on their money.

I see what you're saying, if you are betting a 12 horse field and trying to hit a tri or super that pays over 1,000-1 than its not as bad as betting an even money shot in horse racing.

Yet, the short priced runners, and there are plenty of even money shot type horses around the country on a daily basis, people are paying 15 to 18 percent on that bet. Even in 2, 3 and 4 horse fields, horse racing keeps their takeout at the same levels.

And exactly how productive is betting Alabama when they play some division II school at home? Bout the same isn't it. You can't use individual counter examples to disprove this. Because the prices are fixed you need to look at average/median returns.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

Simple answer. There are more than two betting interests. This creates the potential for higher returns than in sports wagering. Because of the potential for higher returns, bettors are willing to pay more for the wager. The price of the wager is the takeout. Pretty simple really.

Yes...but there is a counter-argument to this, Al.

The fact that there are more than two betting intetests does not only greatly increase the potential returns...thus justifying the higher takeouts; it also greatly increases the complexity of the bet. The greater complexity of the bet is the reason for the higher potential returns...so the takeouts should never even enter into this conversation...IMO.

The player shouldn't have to pay a higher takeout for the chance at the higher potential returns that horseracing offers. He is already paying for this chance at the higher returns...with the higher RISK that he has to take in this game.

[Dave Schwartz]

I'm boycotting everything CHDN (and telling the world to boycott everything CHDN) because I think:

1. Hitting horseplayers with a takeout increase when other options exist is the wrong thing to do.

2. Not spending my money with them is the right thing to do.

I must agree with your actions. I doubt that it will make a difference but I support you.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I must agree with your actions. I doubt that it will make a difference but I support you.

It only needs to make a difference to the people who just say no. If a person who doesn't support them looks in the mirror, they'll be proud of what they see. They'll see a backbone and for at least once in their lives they can say:

I stood for something.

[Vigorish]

Greetings everybody,

Even though Twin Spires has some of the worst player rewards in the industry, I have been a loyal customer since they bought out YouBet in late 2010. I always loved their software, programming, hand histories, and lightning fast cashier. However, all of that came to a screeching halt when I read about their cynical scheme to bilk their already overburdened customers.

A couple of days ago I wrote the following letter to Twin Spires through their customer support client. Surprisingly, one of their customer support agents responded with a promise to put me in touch with a manager. Not surprisingly, management has opted to remain silent.

Here is my letter: "Why are you raising your takeout on Churchill Downs? Do you think your customers have been 'getting a free ride' and should be paying more for the privilege to place a wager? The takeouts are excessive and not competitive with any other form of wagering. One of the reasons I played at Churchill was the reasonable takeout (at least in terms of industry average). Now I feel like you do not respect my business. Takeout hikes will lower business and profits."

I will not bet the Kentucky Oaks, the Derby, or any race affiliated with Churchill Downs. We can gripe all we want about other players not supporting previous boycotts. It does not matter one bit whether other players support or do not support boycotts. Furthermore, it's irrelevant whether some players receive rebates. This is about behaving in a way that reflects our personal values. Perhaps you feel the product is so valuable that a price hike is a small price to play for the thrill of betting their product. For some players, the inexorable advance towards higher and higher takeouts is an accepted part of 'getting in on the action.' Fortunately, there are other outlets that offer lower takeouts, larger fields, and high quality racing. There is a saying, falsely attributed to Gandhi, that goes, "be the change you want to see in the world." One can passively accept insulting price increases or decide to do something different. The beauty about boycotting Churchill Downs is that it takes very little effort. You just have to re-orient your wagering habits so they more closely reflect your values (and often your rational self interest).

[appistappis]

this pretty much follows the premise of most casino games....the more you can win on one bet the higher the house edge is.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

DeanT

Where is the announcement that signal fees are going up so that rebate players will see their rebates shrink?

[Seabiscuit@AR]

badcompany

No rebates and the big rebate players will bet a lot less (and maybe even not bet at all). But so what? If you sell tickets to an event for half price you need to sell twice as many tickets to get the same return. Offering rebates to big players has never seen big enough handle rises long term to offset the discount prices the tickets are sold at PLUS the lost handle from players paying full price takeout who are driven away by the rebate players

The goal of the tracks should not be to increase handle but to increase the amount they collect from the takeout. 5% of 1 million is better than 2% of 2 million

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by Seabiscuit@AR

DeanT

Where is the announcement that signal fees are going up so that rebate players will see their rebates shrink?

They don't issue press releases on such things.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes...but there is a counter-argument to this, Al.

The fact that there are more than two betting intetests does not only greatly increase the potential returns...thus justifying the higher takeouts; it also greatly increases the complexity of the bet. The greater complexity of the bet is the reason for the higher potential returns...so the takeouts should never even enter into this conversation...IMO.

The player shouldn't have to pay a higher takeout for the chance at the higher potential returns that horseracing offers. He is already paying for this chance at the higher returns...with the higher RISK that he has to take in this game.

Not a counter argument at all. This would be (in a basic example anyway) true if you could only bet one straight combination. But no one does that. By buying multiple combinations you are effectively imposing an even higher take on yourself, but you do it to decrease the risk you face. Risk and price are certainly inversely related, that part is correct, but not the rest of what you say. Consider the take people are willing to pay for lotto if you still don't believe me. There buying multiple tickets does very little to change your risk but people are willing to pay takeout on the order of 50%.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

Not a counter argument at all. This would be (in a basic example anyway) true if you could only bet one straight combination. But no one does that. By buying multiple combinations you are effectively imposing an even higher take on yourself, but you do it to decrease the risk you face. Risk and price are certainly inversely related, that part is correct, but not the rest of what you say. Consider the take people are willing to pay for lotto if you still don't believe me. There buying multiple tickets does very little to change your risk but people are willing to pay takeout on the order of 50%.

I disagree with your main premise. The powers that be were not thinking about the higher potential rewards of the game when they imposed the high takeouts. They had a nice gambling monopoly going...and they knew that people would play no matter what they were charged. The excuse that the industry has been giving since day-1 to justify the high takeouts has been that the takeouts were necessary in order to cover the costs of running the show. I say "excuse"...because that's exactly what it was. Unfortunately, we found that out many years later...when the racetracks didn't reduce the takeouts even after their casino profits went a long way towards covering the expenses of "running the show".

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I disagree with your main premise. The powers that be were not thinking about the higher potential rewards of the game when they imposed the high takeouts. They had a nice gambling monopoly going...and they knew that people would play no matter what they were charged. The excuse that the industry has been giving since day-1 to justify the high takeouts has been that the takeouts were necessary in order to cover the costs of running the show. I say "excuse"...because that's exactly what it was. Unfortunately, we found that out many years later...when the racetracks didn't reduce the takeouts even after their casino profits went a long way towards covering the expenses of "running the show".

I'm giving you an argument based on economic theory here. Don't care what your straw men did or didn't do. I'm telling you it is very clear that people are willing to pay more for bets with higher returns. Abstracting from risk for a moment, what are you willing to pay more for, a bet that gives you a 50% chance of winning $1 or one that gives you a 50% chance of winning $100?. We can build from there to include risk/price trade offs but all you have to do is look at the markets out there to see what I'm saying is true.