Quote:
Originally Posted by affirmedny
https://racingthinktank.com/blog/crw...-gotham-stakes
In approximately the last 30 seconds of Gotham Stakes betting, less than 42% of the final exacta pool is wagered while only about 17% of the final win pool was staked.
During this same period, the win odds on eventual race winner, #12 Raise Cain, drifted higher from 21.5-1 to 23.5-1. In the same time frame, the eventual winning $1 exacta combination of Raise Cain with #11 Slip Mahoney crashed from $138.75 to $81.25, a 43% decline in the probable payout.
While just 9.7% of the successful win bets were placed in these final four cycles, almost 66% of the winning exacta bets were placed in those last seconds.
|
But
is anything quoted above truly significant ??
Forgetting that the first sentence isn't significant as written.
Everyone here knows the
cause of the stated data, and it was merely a function of the ongoing
experiment by NYRA.
Everyone here should also be able to figure out that if true
past posting were ongoing, we would all read the blow-by-blow in multiple racing publications when 99.9% of all of them were tracked and disciplined as a result... just as was commonplace 40 years ago when you'd read about every cowboy or housewife working at the $5 exacta window at Cahokia Downs who kept punching the 5-9 until 45 seconds after the race when the bell finally sounded.
IF these are
true concerns at all, they are being addressed from the wrong side of the equation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by o_crunk
So the questions are....
Is it better to cut CRW off at 2 minutes and have these situations where there is *more* inefficiency between the WIN (displayed odds) and the place/show/exotics? (I kinda like having more inefficiency as a stand alone player)
Or is it better to not cut CRW off at 2 minutes and have Raise Cain get bet down commensurate with the place / show / exotics?
I mean, the common complaint was that it just "looks bad" to see these odds drops. OK, so we've removed the odds drops. And now, it's something else that's wrong? I get it but the genie is not being put back in the bottle. Everybody wants to go back to 1980 when only a select few had speed figures and everybody bet at 10 minutes to post and there was 1 daily double a day and maybe an exacta and a tri on the last race. Is this what people want? Only dumb money? It's not gonna happen.
For me, you aren't putting the genie back in the bottle. Let the CRWs run wild. But the rebate remains the issue. If "racing" believed that reduced takeout would be good for business, the CRW rebate would be toast with reduced takeout. But they don't believe that. They believe the takeout doesn't matter except for the very high volume players.
So this is where we are. It seems it would be more complicated for a recreational bettor to play racing now with all these somewhat known or unknown rules about what type of players are involved in which pool and what that means for the other pools. Seems silly to me. Maybe just cut the rebate, reduce the take and give it an honest shot for a couple years to see where the industry is at. Instead we get these cockamamie schemes that aim to appease but wind up making things *way* more complicated than necessary.
|
The top part summarizes the question... but does it really need an answer?
The middle part is absurd:
Why would the "CRW rebate... be toast" with reduced takeout???
Why if "reduced takeout" were the panacea for all things horse racing,
and if it would work precisely as its champions assure that it would (despite that never yet having occurred)... then when you drop the takeout from 20% blended, to 6% blended... the huuuuuuuuuuuuuge upswing in handle would (first solve every problem racing ever had) and then provide
rebates to the insiders (only) commensurate with the new takeout levels. The additional handle windfall (cough, choke) would fully offset and more the raw reduction in rebate percentage.
The problem with that logic lies in the fact that horse racing is already deluged with mere
opportunists who are swallowing any remaining value to be perceived in racing. With any such reduced takeout,
even more opportunists would emerge from the shadows and further disadvantage the rank and file racegoer who remains the only one who paid $8-12 for admission, $5-25 for a seat, $8-40 for a meal, $2-5 for a soda, and $10 for a beer.
Once again, the pipe dream of takeout reduction only tightens the screws on the racegoers, nearly all of whom do not give a $#&% about takeout. The study commissioned by racing 10 or 12 years ago revealed that "less than 2%" of racegoers even
know about takeout.
The clueless logic which permiates conversations in racing much like these is entirely upside down in that (reduced takeout) would only exacerbate all of the problems while solving zero for the person who actually turns up on-site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
He told me, and I'm paraphrasing:
We (my team) would be more than ok if our rebates were reduced provided the takeout was reduced proportionately and we ended up with the same net effective takeout on each wager that we have now.
They should create a level playing field and just give EVERYBODY the same net effective takeout as us.
They'd at least have a chance at attracting and keeping new players, and the game would be better off as a result.
He said that with a surprising amount of conviction in his voice.
I've always thought he was right.
.
|
... and this is why you'll be spending night and day this summer serving up Hawthorne selections to those who travel from far & wide.
Paragraph one is a mathematical no-brainer. Raw math and nothing more. (also something that goes without saying)
Paragraph two would draw even more opportunists, many of whom would probably have fun carving up what racing can recognize as today's opportunists who are cruising just fine (and gutting all things horse racing) at 20% blended takeout.
"Low takeout" does not "attract" anybody of any significance considering once again that
98% of racegoers do not even "know" about takeout.
Only additional
opportunists would be significantly attracted by lower takeout... and always at the direct expense of purses, wagering outlets,
and true racegoers across the land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Turf_Monster
I've always thought the simplest solution is to have two pools, on-track and off-track.
For off-track wagers, all cancelling of wagers should be eliminated with an exception for a late scratch.
|
They basically had that, at many simulcast spots throughout the land on the way to the commingled pools that are the norm today. It was largely absurd... except on occasion to the rare player who had not just one, but both runners who paid $175 to place in difference races on the same card... and to the person who cashed a $2 win ticket for some $2500 someplace in the midwest so very long ago. (simulcast return, not official win price)
In summation... all of these dreams, ideas, and perceived solutions are
addressing the equation from the wrong side. They are akin to ditching the old "solve for X" in Algebra, and instead giving you "X" and making you produce some random equation of your own choosing, in a
JEOPARDY-like scenario where just one answer is optimal.
As usual,
thanks for playing
