if you always wanted to go to the races in California...

[Candybag]

Originally Posted by Sheffwed

bring back in person bookmakers, like they have to this day in the UK and elsewhere, which helps attract people to go in person (and spend money on food etc)

but require bets to be made on a computer, so that there is takeout

let the bookmakers take the risk in setting the odds, that's an entire business in the UK

I don't understand why this hasn't happened already, but as others have said in this thread, few racetracks seem to care about on track handle, which is weird because they get the highest percentage of that

Dania Jai Alai would break even, except most of the handle comes from Connecticut, and they only get a smidge of that

why no focus on making people come to the track to get better odds? I don't get it

The founder of HTR says fixed odds wagering would get him back to the track. He and others persuaded me to pursue the same in lieu of other ideas to encourage on track attendance.

Once I became known in the Medicaid field, I was put in front of important people. I am an unknown in racing circles and cold calling is tough stuff. I am hoping Paulick, Byk, Repole or BetMakers at least will give me 10 minutes to sell them on the possibilities.

People on this forum know people. Perhaps someone could tell their connections to just give me 10 minutes to hear the "no risk" idea. It was a racetrack guy (some of you know) who put me in front of Medicaid contacts, and he watched them respond very favorably. Those professional contacts knew what I was saying had great potential.

As stated before, everyone who works in my field and who is serious about horse racing loves the idea. There is nothing to lose to hear the idea. There is nothing to lose with a pilot project. I put up the money and the process is done quietly behind the scenes as an operation of current law. If successful, then the governor can proceed with the racetrack initiatives with confidence.

The governor takes no official position until I show him the money using my money.

[Andy Asaro]

Fixed odds kicks out winners. Parimutuel is best IF everyone get the same lower takeout

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

Fixed odds kicks out winners. Parimutuel is best IF everyone get the same lower takeout

I wonder how many winners are getting kicked out of betting on the NFL at fixed odds using DraftKings and FanDuel. Do you have those numbers? Makes no sense to kick out the one in a thousand person who is going to actually make a 10% profit betting on horse racing over the course of a year. On the contrary the person should be celebrated and promoted in order to throw a lot more fuel on the gambling fire. You'll have people who currently bet on sports trying to bet on racing too when the type of bet put in front of them actually looks like what they're already betting on. I also don't think the track is going to go broke from the one person in a thousand who can somehow manage to grind a small profit out of this game. What this one person 'gets' from them which granted does ultimately cut into the track's profit is going to be a drop in the bucket compared to what the track is already essentially giving back to these people who are getting massively rebated today.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by MJC922

I wonder how many winners are getting kicked out of betting on the NFL at fixed odds using DraftKings and FanDuel. Do you have those numbers? Makes no sense to kick out the one in a thousand person who is going to actually make a 10% profit betting on horse racing over the course of a year. On the contrary the person should be celebrated and promoted in order to throw a lot more fuel on the gambling fire. You'll have people who currently bet on sports trying to bet on racing too when the type of bet put in front of them actually looks like what they're already betting on. I also don't think the track is going to go broke from the one person in a thousand who can somehow manage to grind a small profit out of this game. What this one person 'gets' from them which granted does ultimately cut into the track's profit is going to be a drop in the bucket compared to what the track is already essentially giving back to these people who are getting massively rebated today.

What I said is true. Informed people know this. I met with the CEO of the Australian company at the symposium in Arizona a couple years ago.

[Candybag]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

Fixed odds kicks out winners. Parimutuel is best IF everyone get the same lower takeout

Agree and there has been much discussion on this topic. How does a track lower takeout without the CAWs just betting more thus cannibalizing the odds and any benefit?

Doing a 365 day all burger with HTR data shows the effective "win" takeout to be approximately 25%, or 7% more than the published takeout. I often joke if people want lower takeout, just bar the CAWs. Such a prohibition reinstates the takeout back to 18% or a lowering of the takeout by 7%.

Of note: I was barred by a bookmaker before, so your point is very real. Fixed odds betting would help the losing punter stay in the game longer.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

What I said is true. Informed people know this. I met with the CEO of the Australian company at the symposium in Arizona a couple years ago.

I'm not talking about austrailian companies I'm asking you a question about the NFL fixed odds players and bans. There does not need to be a complete shift in how the US game is played from tote to fixed odds. That's not what I'm advocating. I'm advocating some pick'em style bets horse vs horse being offered at fixed odds to expand wagering options and also to draw in sports bettors with those bets, however the primary wagering I believe can remain via the tote. We aren't going to take away your beloved pick five with 15% rake. What's counter productive is when we have people trying to shoot down any mention of fixed odds wagering period. That's not helping anyone especially when we already know millions of people are betting the NFL with fixed odds every week. Why don't you tell them they need to convert all of that to the tote so they don't get banned? See how that goes. You can lower takeout across the board and keep the same wagering options you have now, that will not change 'churn' in any way significant and we'll see the usual slow decline over the next several decades. People aren't going broke in a few hours at a racetrack because the rake isn't 4% lower. Takeout does need to be optimized. I agree with that. I'm not sure what that magic number is but it likely varies by the type of wager being made and field sizes might need to be considered.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by MJC922

Makes no sense to kick out the one in a thousand person who is going to actually make a 10% profit betting on horse racing over the course of a year. On the contrary the person should be celebrated and promoted in order to throw a lot more fuel on the gambling fire.

There's something to be said for this.

It was Chris Moneymaker's win in the World Series that helped set off the poker boom. People saw that a non pro poker player could make a huge score and they all wanted to be the next one.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by MJC922

I'm not talking about austrailian companies I'm asking you a question about the NFL fixed odds players and bans. There does not need to be a complete shift in how the US game is played from tote to fixed odds. That's not what I'm advocating. I'm advocating some pick'em style bets horse vs horse being offered at fixed odds to expand wagering options and also to draw in sports bettors with those bets, however the primary wagering I believe can remain via the tote. We aren't going to take away your beloved pick five with 15% rake. What's counter productive is when we have people trying to shoot down any mention of fixed odds wagering period. That's not helping anyone especially when we already know millions of people are betting the NFL with fixed odds every week. Why don't you tell them they need to convert all of that to the tote so they don't get banned? See how that goes. You can lower takeout across the board and keep the same wagering options you have now, that will not change 'churn' in any way significant and we'll see the usual slow decline over the next several decades. People aren't going broke in a few hours at a racetrack because the rake isn't 4% lower. Takeout does need to be optimized. I agree with that. I'm not sure what that magic number is but it likely varies by the type of wager being made and field sizes might need to be considered.

This is the company https://betmakers.com/about-us/

BetMakers Technology Group (ASX:BET) is a leading global provider of technologies and services that monetize horse racing for stakeholders at every stage of the racing life cycle with solutions for racing bodies, bookmakers, and pari-mutuel wagering operations.

Based in Australia, BetMakers is a global organization with over 500 team members and business and operational offices on four continents.

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by MJC922

...What's counter productive is when we have people trying to shoot down any mention of fixed odds wagering period. That's not helping anyone especially when we already know millions of people are betting the NFL with fixed odds every week.

Apples and oranges. The big differentiator is PED's in horse racing. We all know you can turn a tube sock into a graded stakes winner with the right magic dust, and we all know there are some very bad actors out there doing this right now, behind the scenes, without any transparency. Who is going to pay out fixed odds winners that win like a 3-5 shot but are fixed at 15-1 because the connections darkened the form waiting for the right score? I don't see NFL teams, coaches or connections, able to manipulate an outcome anywhere near the way they can in horse racing. Fixed odds, or at least a serious fixed odds betting option, will never, ever happen in horse racing. Ever. (They might allow some minor bets on big races with dramatically reduced fixed odds but never any day in, day out scenario with large betting limits).

[proximity]

Originally Posted by castaway01

"Free" is obviously not going to happen, but 20 years ago before it was all-ADW and whales carrying the game, we were all saying "Wow, these tracks getting casinos could cut takeout a few points, give us some of the benefit." They obviously didn't, and ADWs were smart enough to take advantage of that to the point the tracks now need them to survive.

yep, even pen itself outsourced the telebet and never developed a non-insulting rebate program.

"free" i put in parentheses because even at 100% rebate there would still be a takeout on the free play, which like in the casino, would not earn points.

example: 20 percent takeout, fully rebated yields 20 * .2 = 4 percent takeout.
so the actual takeout would be between 4 and 20 percent as the track would receive the full take on non players card bets and expired free play.

another example would be 20 percent take with 16 percent rebate.
in this example the actual take would be between 7.2 (4+3.2) and 20 percent.

i don't know what the best numbers would be but am pretty sure this was the proper model to follow. "visible" free play i call it.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

Apples and oranges. The big differentiator is PED's in horse racing. We all know you can turn a tube sock into a graded stakes winner with the right magic dust, and we all know there are some very bad actors out there doing this right now, behind the scenes, without any transparency. Who is going to pay out fixed odds winners that win like a 3-5 shot but are fixed at 15-1 because the connections darkened the form waiting for the right score? I don't see NFL teams, coaches or connections, able to manipulate an outcome anywhere near the way they can in horse racing. Fixed odds, or at least a serious fixed odds betting option, will never, ever happen in horse racing. Ever. (They might allow some minor bets on big races with dramatically reduced fixed odds but never any day in, day out scenario with large betting limits).

Sir, you're the guy who thinks fixed odds would be implemented by letting people bet into the morning line. That explains your position on the whole thing. I would be wasting my time going further when that's where you're coming from.

Plus I don't care about a full conversion over to fixed odds in the first place so I'm not going to fight that battle. I'll let someone else do it, someone who thinks they really need it, with projected odds I don't need it. It would be nice but I don't need it. If the tracks want to try it I can help them get closer to a way to implement it but they surely don't need me for that, they have smart enough people or can hire them. The match up bet I do want fixed odds on. I don't think it's viable otherwise especially given who we're courting. You know we do have the option of doing nothing right? Let's just watch the ship sink? Because I'm hearing a lot of what we can't do, and not much about what we can do. Like I said if the solution is just lower takeout and have a nice day we're on way different pages. You need to figure out a way for know nothings to churn money and 'think' they have a shot. There isn't a damn thing on the wagering menu now that delivers and lowering takeout by itself doesn't change that.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by MJC922

Sir, you're the guy who thinks fixed odds would be implemented by letting people bet into the morning line. That explains your position on the whole thing. I would be wasting my time going further when that's where you're coming from.

Plus I don't care about a full conversion over to fixed odds in the first place so I'm not going to fight that battle. I'll let someone else do it, someone who thinks they really need it, with projected odds I don't need it. It would be nice but I don't need it. If the tracks want to try it I can help them get closer to a way to implement it but they surely don't need me for that, they have smart enough people or can hire them. The match up bet I do want fixed odds on. I don't think it's viable otherwise especially given who we're courting. You know we do have the option of doing nothing right? Let's just watch the ship sink? Because I'm hearing a lot of what we can't do, and not much about what we can do. Like I said if the solution is just lower takeout and have a nice day we're on way different pages. You need to figure out a way for know nothings to churn money and 'think' they have a shot. There isn't a damn thing on the wagering menu now that delivers and lowering takeout by itself doesn't change that.

I am not really clear what you are looking for when you say you want a way for no nothings to churn money and think they have a shot, yet takeout isn't in that discussion. Are you trying to create brainless bets just to bring fresh money into the pools? Or am I misinterpreting what you are saying. Anyhow I want throw something your way and the forums way.

What if the racing industry priced just the wps pools correctly (1% per horse). So 5 horse field, 5% takeout, 10 horse field 10% takeout. Or they can just use a flat 8%. They left every other pool as is. Would that not give everyone the ability to churn money, lose maybe 10-12% long term on average which is pretty much on par with just about every other form of gambling (a little higher than slots). To make it even better keep caw out of just these pools (like nyra does). So this would basically be the Nyra plan on steroids. This alone would give those that wanted to learn the sport a very good opportunity to learn the game, compete, grow their game and grow a passion for this sport and eventually become winning players. It should also create a lot of churn from both novices and experienced horse players alike (even losing players). Once people became winning players they likely will dive into some of the other pools at the much higher takeout rates. Some will do so right away. The new blood would be prime candidates for the matchup betting that you fancy so much or any of the other gimmicks they have coming up the pipeline. It would also probably create a lot more interest in handicapping tournaments (not my thing, but a lot of horse players seem to be into them).

This is simply using a very tried and true business strategy, the loss leader concept on just the wps pool? This to me would be a far more effective way to give the sport a jolt than some of the stuff they are going to try. It also enables them to keep their precious Caw in most of the pools. The new blood and the better opportunities for current bettors will make the other pools bigger, enabling the Caw to bet more and bring up that handle even more. As they bring up the handle, look at all the opportunities for charity down the road. This should appeal to the racing industry and to me it is a lot better than the status quo (hardly ideal but a start). If it is truly effective it might wake the industry up some to the fact that there is a better way.

This is very low cost. (what NYRA currently does plus 8 percent of wps pool (and it will not take long for the pool growth to make it much more profitable than what Nyra is currently doing). Yes it would create some more extreme pool imbalances. But, if the industry is transparent and explains that the computer teams are in one pool and not the players will know what to expect. Since it is to your extreme benefit as a non rebated player you should be good with it. Best of all it would actually provide this sport with something to promote and market that would definitely appeal to their target market (advantage gamblers). Also promoting parlays and round robins in these low takeout pools (and making them easily playable at ADW's) will go a long way to boosting churn. A far better alternative typically than the pick 4's and pick 5's because you can focus on horses and races you like.

[AskinHaskin]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

If this man needs non existent data to understand that rebates/caw and ridiculous takeout are the biggest problems this sports faces he needs to figure things out before declaring himself the savior of the industry. (If CJ or PA want to replace my quote with the tweet, be my guest).

Regarding this tweet. Canterbury and Hawthorne race short meets, like 3 days a week if I am not mistaken, and have really low quality horses (which for the most part are sort of painful to handicap imo). If data instead of common sense is going to be his barometer on how this industry needs to proceed he is pretty useless. JMO. That makes him no different than the industry saying we lowered the takeout in this pool for 2 years from 19% to 17 % and it proved to not work so now we are going to raise it to 21%.

Lowering takeout is not a magic wand. It has to be done across the board, not just in this pool or that pool, it has to be done long term to bring people back in the game or into it for the first time and build their patronage, it has to be dropped to a level that is competitive with other forms of advantage gambling (something like 10% across the board) and it has to be done as part of a very comprehensive marketing/educating the new consumer package. It is not a matter of pressing a button and saying Presto and suddenly your handle triples. Fantasy land or not that is the only way this sport grows. So it time for the people in this industry to start fantasizing.

BTW, I think may not work in this business, but not thinking for over 20 years has certainly destroyed this business. So carry on racing industry. I will see you at the procession. Or maybe charity will keep you alive just long enough so you don't completely die in my lifetime.

You plainly cannot understand what you're talking about.


It's that concise.


Take a sport and an industry that has simply been torn apart by opportunists right in front of everybody's nose (or head, or neck) at 20% blended takeout, and then reduce said takeout by, say, half (to 10%).

What do you envision taking place just as soon as that brainless idea is implemented?


The opportunists will multiply exponentially in an arena where the suckers on-track are already too few to keep supporting the present day opportunists.

The on-track bettors, it has been proven so many times over, do not give a sh*t about takeout. They, most significantly, are the ones who have been ignored since horse racing was conceived by kings so long ago.

Racing will need to actually do something that relates to its core product for those in attendance each day, for the first time in its long existence, in order to begin to reverse all that the sport has done unto itself.

The Hawthorne takeout idiocy was a bloodbath, so much so that they won't even come out and summarize the net effects of their own stupidity.

All that matters on the bottom line is revenue from handle, even though there are certain people here who can't tell the difference between reported "handle" and the revenue it provides.

Originally Posted by Poindexter

not thinking for over 20 years

Perhaps it might be time to stop and think. During the time you missed, opportunists have rendered horse racing on the verge of its demise thanks in largest part due to racing's own choices and decisions while steadily ignoring its on-site patrons.

This win-probability thing at Laurel is a more advanced step in the appropriate direction than would be takeout reduction. Telling the fans who is likely to win, when the field is at the Quarter Pole, might just be the first step toward doing so while the runners are still in the paddock and when it can have a positive effect on handle.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

I am not really clear what you are looking for when you say you want a way for no nothings to churn money and think they have a shot, yet takeout isn't in that discussion. Are you trying to create brainless bets just to bring fresh money into the pools? Or am I misinterpreting what you are saying.

I believe I said -115 correct? That means a 6.5% rake on a match up bet. Can you go any higher than 6.5? Probably not much on a coin flip bet so of course the amount of vig matters. A 15% takeout on a pick five however is not the reason why people lose on the pick five, you do know that right? In fact with zero takeout many/most in fact nearly ALL people will lose anyway. The good players will win more. Look at any pick six with carryover. Are all of those bets automatically plus EV because the carryover has neutralized the takeout? Of course not. Takeout definitely should be optimized to generate the most action in every pool, I'm 100% on board with that as long as the track thrives it's all good. Where we differ is you seem to think that is the answer in a nutshell. I think the general public when they have given the game a try were mechanically separated from their money so quickly the takeout had very little to do with it. Once you give them some sort of assistance, give them some sort of a safety net with higher win rates that's when the takeout on the grind will become more important. Let's not get overly concerned about folks being able to grow crops on the moon when their rocketship can't even get off the ground -- not to mention only one in a thousand is going to have the stomach for whatever grows up there anyway.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by MJC922

I believe I said -115 correct? That means a 6.5% rake on a match up bet. Can you go any higher than 6.5? Probably not much on a coin flip bet so of course the amount of vig matters. A 15% takeout on a pick five however is not the reason why people lose on the pick five, you do know that right? In fact with zero takeout many/most in fact nearly ALL people will lose anyway. The good players will win more. Look at any pick six with carryover. Are all of those bets automatically plus EV because the carryover has neutralized the takeout? Of course not. Takeout definitely should be optimized to generate the most action in every pool, I'm 100% on board with that as long as the track thrives it's all good. Where we differ is you seem to think that is the answer in a nutshell. I think the general public when they have given the game a try were mechanically separated from their money so quickly the takeout had very little to do with it. Once you give them some sort of assistance, give them some sort of a safety net with higher win rates that's when the takeout on the grind will become more important. Let's not get overly concerned about folks being able to grow crops on the moon when their rocketship can't even get off the ground -- not to mention only one in a thousand is going to have the stomach for whatever grows up there anyway.

I have no problem with horse vs horse betting. But unlike betting whether Lebron James is going to score over or under 31 point in a game, it
has extremely limited appeal to the masses. To be interested, you have to know racing and you have to see something that you feel can be exploited. That is why it appeals to you. You think of all the times there are two horses in a race at near equal odds and you have a strong opinion that one horse is better than the other.

This type of bet is a gravy type of bet. You have to build the sport to the point enough people might actually care and then you start to put up these wagers and over time they build some momentum. For the racing industry to book them at a profit at -115 will be a challenge to say the least (even though you feel it is a given). For these types of bet to create passion for this game, I would consider highly unlikely. Also, even though you prefer the grinding game and have been successful with it, a lot of horse players and sports bettors for that matter (8 team parlays etc) prefer going for scores. This type of wagering is not exactly what they play this game for.


Btw, to Askin Haskin, I am going to let the brilliance of your post stand unchallenged. I can't imagine the excitement of betting this game with the assumption that AI can solve the question of how much each horse has, that information being provided to everyone alive and we all get to lose the track take. Fun stuff.